Like most states, we draw the line at viability outside the womb. Beginning of third trimester.
If a fetus can live on its own, w/o life support, outside the womb, then taking it’s life would be no different than killing a nine m.o. baby outside the womb.
And that is typically where most states draw the line, making abortions beyond the third trimester, illegal. Seven states have no restrictions. You can abort a baby right up until the day it’s born in seven states. To me, that seems too much like killing a viable human being. At that point I’m more in favor of delivering the baby and giving it up for adoption if the Mother or Gather don’t want it.
But I would never want to impose morality on a woman in dire straights. I do think there is a line and I choose to draw the line where my state draws it, at viability.
And I don’t think that makes states that have zero restrictions on abortion evil, I just think they are more compassionate towards Mothers and less compassionate towards the unborn.

You already have an active thread on this topic.

I think men should be arguing about what are acceptable ways they can kill their sperm without going to jail or risking health issues and STFU about what is going on inside a woman's uterus.

The opinions of religious clergy, politicians and men who think they should override what the woman wants to do with her own damn body have zero respect from me at least.

Like I said I would never impose my morality on a woman in dire straights, but apparently women don’t need my opinion, or vote.

So your moral principles depend on whether people are nice to you?

Vote because the power to go after one group leads to power to go after other groups, and one of them might be you.

I vote. I’m just fine with the maintaining the status quo, when it comes to reproductive rights.

If the SCOTUS votes, as expected, to change the status quo, to hand abortion legislation over to the states, I’m ok with that too, since the state I live in is committed to women’s rights and to being an abortion sanctuary.

If women in Red States want to maintain their rights, they should vote out legislators who do not represent their interests, or go to a state that does represent their interests already. Either way, I see a major demographic shift coming and that’s a good thing.

Fortunately none of my loved ones live in a state that would overturn their rights.

Did you feel the same way about state rights to slavery? I mean, heck, those good old boys could have voted it out if they didn't want it, right?

You have the luxury of living in a blue state. I don't. I have a daughter and granddaughters here who don't deserve less rights than I had.

I don't think men realize how disastrous this is for women's place in society. If it were about men, they would get anything they want.

No I don’t feel the same about slavery or civil rights, but those are mentioned in the amendments to the constitution.
Abortion isn’t and I have yet to see where it is an inalienable right.

Inalienable rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does a women have the right to life if she's pregnant and something goes wrong with the pregnancy that leads to her life being in danger?

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Inalienable rights are the right to life, liberty
> and the pursuit of happiness. Does a women have
> the right to life if she's pregnant and something
> goes wrong with the pregnancy that leads to her
> life being in danger?


Absolutely.
I’m 100% for women’s health!
When the ship is going down what does everybody shout?
“SAVE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!”
What do stewardesses say?
Cover your face with oxygen, then your child’s.
Because if you die, the kid dies too.
You live, you have a chance to save your kid.

So bottom line, SAVE THE WOMEN!

Women can always make more kids.

The world might be better off if all the men just disappeared suddenly and the women could start over as a matriarchy and raise their sons to respect and love their Mothers, sisters and girlfriends.

So you're ok with inequality in the US as long as it doesn't affect you and yours? Wow.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you're ok with inequality in the US as long as
> it doesn't affect you and yours? Wow.


I don’t get to vote in Red states, so it doesn’t matter how I feel about what happens in those states. I’m just glad I don’t live in a red state.

People get the government they deserve. If they really don’t like the state government they have they can move, go out of state for an abortion, or do like Stacey Abrams and work to turn their states blue.

So you think the Federal Government doesn't get a say in equal rights for all Americans?

Obviously not.

IF the leaked draft majority decision represents reality, it looks like the majority is poised to kick the decision on abortion back down to the states, where it was 50yrs ago.

I disagree with that decision, but I’m powerless to do anything about it, so I accept the law of the land, rather than stress about something out of my control.

Fortunately I live in a state that cares more about the rights of women than the rights of a clump of cells, up until they become a viable human life. I agree with my state’s determination.

And I’d fight like hell to defend those rights on my state, but if the majority in Red states feels differently, then they’ll determine the right to life for the unborn is more important than women’s right to choose.

If states are going to force women to carry pregnancies to full term, the state should be forced to provide full care for the kids they wanted, until adulthood.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People get the government they deserve. If they
> really don’t like the state government they have
> they can move, go out of state for an abortion, or
> do like Stacey Abrams and work to turn their
> states blue.

I don't believe it's the case that people "get the government they deserve". That would mean that those living in areas where government is undemocratic have personally somehow asked for or caused such a situation, when in fact they have little to no power due to the undemocratic rulers they may be forced to live under.

Also, even in democratic countries/states you can vote but still not get the government you voted for if more votes are cast for candidates other than the one/s you support.

As for "they can move" or "go out of state for an abortion", that is part of the inequity posters here have been discussing. Finances are a major stumbling block for many who may NOT be able to move (too expensive) or travel out of state (not enough money to do so and/or can't get time off job).

As an aside, not everybody has time or ability to campaign or get personally involved in elections in any regard. That doesn't mean "they get what they deserve".

We have to remember to try and put ourselves in the place of others whose circumstances, education, income, abilities are not all the same as our own. It doesn't mean they are less than. Except perhaps in the sense of being less fortunate than many of the rest of us. What is true for us, what makes sense to us, what we think is right, is not always universal.

In a democracy people get the government they deserve.
I hope this motivates Americans to vote.
Especially young women and those who love them!

An acorn is not an oak tree. A zygote is not a human. No murder.

"The main indications for third-trimester abortion were neurologic anomalies, multiple malformations with a normal karyotype, and chromosomal anomalies diagnosed after an abnormal routine ultrasound scan. In 55 cases (18%) of third-trimester induced abortion, the anomaly could not have been diagnosed before the third-trimester."

The study also indicates that third-trimester abortions are often the result of false negative tests in the second trimester. With improved screening, these can often be avoided.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10426234/

"If Kavanaugh doesn't like the way people in his state are gathering outside his house, maybe he can just take off work and drive hundreds of miles to a different state." -- Samantha Bee

My feeling has always been that life begins at birth and ends at death. However I have observed what I believe to be ajenda driven self serving do gooders attempt to FROCIBLY INTERFERE with the rights of other human beings to further their ajendas.
I don't know what the "correct answer" is. I only know how I feel about it. Therefore it should be a personal choice in my opinion

Do people who refuse to have abortions cause other people to get pregnant ?

Brigham Young said a woman will know the spirit of her child entered its body when it kicks for the first time.

So for mormons that should be when life begins.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brigham Young said a woman will know the spirit of
> her child entered its body when it kicks for the
> first time.
>
> So for mormons that should be when life begins.


So between 16 and 24 weeks then.

Mormons don't recognize a soul unless a baby takes a breath.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brigham Young said a woman will know the spirit of
> her child entered its body when it kicks for the
> first time.
>
> So for mormons that should be when life begins.

Womenfolk called it "quickening". It happens between 16 and 25 weeks of pregnancy. First-time pregnant women usually do not feel quickening until 25 weeks, or so. Regardless-women should be the decisionmaker regarding abortion, not the government.

Is the egg alive?
Is the sperm alive?

Is a nearly full term fetus with no heart beat alive?
Is a fetus with severe abnormalities that is not viable outside the womb alive?

Is a fertilized egg swept from the uterine wall by an IUD alive?
Is a fertilized egg that gets stuck in a Fallopean tube alive?

Is a cluster of cells that have yet to begin to organize after fertilization alive?

Who has the knowledge to answer these questions?
Should the rule-makers present evidence of a passing grade in a course in physiology and should they be tested on their in-depth understanding of human development before they are allowed to rule on the abortion issue?

>>Should the rule-makers present evidence of a passing grade in a course in physiology and should they be tested on their in-depth understanding of human development before they are allowed to rule on the abortion issue?

That says it all. A bunch of religious wackos who have done their best to thwart science, let alone understand it, have little credibility.

Rule makers are about suppressing women and maintaining their power. Science is simply a hinderance to their agendas in general, be it climate or reproductive issues. They usually don't understand the science, and don't care except to deny it.

If abortion is murder, what do you think the proper punishment is for women who commit such a crime?

"At what point does life begin? IOW what point in pregnancy does abortion = murder?

COMMENT: In order to meaningfully ask at what point life begins, you must first know what life is. That is a complex and disputed question that remains unresolved. So, that question is not going to help us in the abortion debate. One might argue, for example, that biologically speaking, whenever there is a cell that exhibits 'autopoietic' biochemical processes there is life. In other words, life encompasses biochemical processes that function within a well-defined unit that engages in purposeful activity. By this definition, a gamete (a sperm cell or egg cell) represents a 'living cell' and therefore life. After all, these entities are not like tiny rocks or grains of sand.

Another, perhaps more pertinent question, is, 'When does a 'human life' begin?' A human life is an organism, that is, a living *system* that functions in accordance with its human genetic endowment, as a more or less independent individual entity. On that definition, a human life arguably begins upon fertilization; the creation of a zygote. Such an organism, at any stage of development, is a human life. After all, it is not a frog life, or a snake life, it is a human life by definition! "Human" refers to "homo sapiens," which is defined biologically by its genetic endowment. The human zygote theoretically has all of the genetic makeup of a mature human being, and it is 'living.' As such, it is a human life. So, if you think it is wrong per se to kill human life, then abortion at any stage of development is morally wrong.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. "Human life" in the biological context, is not the same as "a human life" in either the psychological context, or the moral context. An unconscious comatose human is not living a human life by standards of psychology. Such a human is biologically alive, to be sure, but not psychologically alive. It is not 'living a life.' Most importantly, our common intuitions make moral distinctions between conscious humans that are 'living a life,' and unconscious, comatose humans that are not. Zygotes and fetuses are not, in this sense, 'living a life.'

Finally, within our common moral intuitions there is a distinction to be made as to whether or not the biological human who is NOT psychologically 'living a life,' nonetheless has the 'potential' to become psychologically human in that sense. The comatose person who is expected to recover carries more moral consideration than the comatose person that to a high degree of certainly will not. This informs us that 'potential' psychological humanness, and the lack of potential humanness, in the psychological sense, matters in our assessment of the moral action, and our moral responsibility.

Imagine--as a thought experiment and 'moral intuition pump'--two babies (A and B) that are both born comatose. Because of physical deficits, Baby A has no reasonable prospect for a psychological life, that is, to 'live a life,' whereas Baby B is thought to have a good chance to recover and life a normal psychological life.

Now, suppose Baby A and Baby B were competing for biologically necessary life-sustaining resources. Would they be on equal footing with respect to the moral imperative as to the distribution of such resources. Most of us would say no. We feel that our moral obligations are to Baby B because of her psychological potential. If you agree, it shows that a 'potential psychological life' matters when making a moral decision involving life and death. Even if only Baby B was involved, her interest in a potential psychological life would be morally relevant.

If that is the case, then a Prochoice advocate having such moral intuitions, must agree that the 'potential' for a psychological life carries moral relevance when considering whether to end such a life in a zygote or fetus. Rough statistics indicate that between 20-25% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. A small percentage of abortions are deemed 'medically necessary.' So, very roughly 70 percent of pregnancies carry with them a potential psychological human life. As such, one might conclude that--but for the rights of the women over her own body--the Prolife argument would be highly compelling, if not conclusive.

Of course, the above analysis is very general. It ignores (1) the multiply varied and nuanced facts--medical, psychological, and personal--that are relevant to the abortion decision, and (2) the moral, intuitively compelling, privacy rights of the mother over her own body. For me, it is these last two considerations--and not the status of the fetus--that compels the Prochoice stance with respect to abortion. On the level of the interests and status of the fetus, the Prochoice advocate losses, hands down. It is only after considering the woman's rights with respect to her own body, coupled with the morally complex contingent facts and circumstances of each case, that the Prochoice position is morally justified.

Anyway, that is how I see it.

This means that the abortion decision--however ultimately a matter of choice--should be taken very seriously.

. . . and that complicates.
Legislation is about drawing artificial lines; enforcement enforces that line; and the practice of law is about arguing which side of the line a defendant was on.
Because of this lawyers want hard definitive answers; and medicine is about gradients.
(Think about it: law is an artificial construct, like chess.
In medicine you're dealing with nature.)

Kid is born, doc signs a birth certificate; but that's a legal document. Hard line.
Someone dies, doc signs a death certificate; but that is a legal document. Hard line (legally) - yet is a person with normal physiologic parameters but a flatline eeg alive or dead? And since eeg detects only the outer 1 cm of cortical activity, is it a valid tool?
You decide.
Even with supposed viability there is no certainty; many within the window don't make it. And determining gestational age is inexact - even with all our technology. So getting a hard line is not possible medically, despite a lawyer's (self) righteous demands.

Is someone "competent"? We can provide data; but it's a legal, not medical, concept.
"Murder" is a legal concept. Not in textbooks of medicine. The forensic pathologist is applying a legal measure to a manner of death.

So the argument appears crisply simple, but it's piling uncertainty upon uncertainty so as to be pointless.
Any hard line is going to be artificially drawn -- by a lawyer.

Let's say life begins at conception and so abortion is murder no exclusions. (when is that, by the way, for it takes sometimes days; and what of zygotes splitting, is it now multiple homicide?). In the case of "tubal pregnancy" - medically that is an emergency and a salpingectomy indicated, because if allowed untended and the tube ruptures the woman will bleed out - you won't believe how fast that happens.
If the surgeon does what is medically indicated is the surgeon guilty of homicide?
If the surgeon hesitates of fear and both mother and foetus are lost, is there now in addition to negligence mass murder?

See, dogmatists don't think.
Nor do they take responsibility.

It's much clearer to keep this in the realm of bodily autonomy:
does a government "of the people by the people" really have the unwelcome unilateral authority to intrude upon anyone with respect to bodily autonomy? If so, why and how?
Forced sterilization, anyone?

Screw all these armchair arguments.
If the government continues this tack, women are going to needlessly die.
100% predictable.

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the government continues this tack, women are
> going to needlessly die.


And that is the bottom line.

. . . and the fact I did so was simple innocent oversight, as the moralisms of "should" for me simply bear no gravity
(hesitate to reference it as a "discipline").

But throw that moralism-cat in the barrel, and now suddenly clarity of thought really gets gummed up.

Whatever - the bottom-line "de-shoulded" fact stands regardless.

"See, dogmatists don't think.
Nor do they take responsibility."

COMMENT: I agree. And this goes for dogmatists on both sides of the abortion debate. The myopic dogma 'my body, my right' is a perfect example!
________________________________________

"It's much clearer to keep this in the realm of bodily autonomy: does a government "of the people by the people" really have the unwelcome unilateral authority to intrude upon anyone with respect to bodily autonomy? If so, why and how?
Forced sterilization, anyone?"

COMMENT: As you noted here, governments draw lines. That is precisely what the law does. Those lines are not drawn by what is 'easy' or the most 'simplistic' response to a problem. How these lines are drawn in a democratic society is through the people's elected representatives. ("of the people, by the people). That means through the legislative process. Sometimes these lines affect the rights of others, including bodily rights. Sometimes the lines are deemed unconstitutional, and we are back to square one. Then, a Constitutional amendment might be required. Whatever, all is done by procedural law, as established by the U.S. Constitution, various state Constitutions, and federal and state laws. Trying to make things neat and easy, doesn't help. It often makes things worse.

_____________________________________

Screw all these armchair arguments.

COMMENTS: What do you have left after you "screw all of these armchair arguments? Blind random social policy? Or, more likely, policy by political power? That sounds good.
___________________________________________________________

If the government continues this tack, women are going to needlessly die. 100% predictable.

COMMENT: No doubt. But that is one factor to be weighed in the abortion debate, along with the deaths of millions of fetuses. Noting that some women will die does not dictate any particular policy or solve a damn thing. It may be the bottom line of a common rhetorical argument, but it is NOT the bottom line of any *rational* argument.

> COMMENT: I agree. And this goes for dogmatists on
> both sides of the abortion debate. The myopic
> dogma 'my body, my right' is a perfect example!

And thus Henry announces that the belief that a person should have control of her own body is "myopic dogma."


--------------
> COMMENT: As you noted here, governments draw
> lines. That is precisely what the law does.
> Those lines are not drawn by what is 'easy' or the
> most 'simplistic' response to a problem. How
> these lines are drawn in a democratic society is
> through the people's elected representatives. ("of
> the people, by the people). That means through the
> legislative process.

In which Henry again demonstrates that he does not understand that he lives in a constitutional republic, a form of government that in the name of the individual limits the power of the legislative majority.


----------------
> Sometimes these lines affect
> the rights of others, including bodily rights.

Wherein Henry reiterates his reasoned view that the state has the right to intrude on a person's bodily autonomy, thereby inviting a thread on the merits of his own forced sterilization--but only in objective, rational terms that would not admit any subjective views from him or anyone likewise situated.


--------------------
> Sometimes the lines are deemed unconstitutional,
> and we are back to square one.

Almost an afterthought, that. But I guess it's better than nothing.


-------------------
> Constitutional amendment might be required.
> Whatever, all is done by procedural law, as
> established by the U.S. Constitution, various
> state Constitutions, and federal and state laws.
> Trying to make things neat and easy, doesn't help.
> It often makes things worse.

It's at this point that the reader realizes Henry has no point to make. He starts by saying the state has the right to intervene in a person's medical decisions, then says that the right is subject to constitutional prohibitions, and concludes that it's all well and good as long as we follow "procedures"--neglecting the fact that the fundamental problem is disagreement over what those procedures are.

But hey, having solved our problem by declaring a priori that the state has the right to invade a woman's uterus, it should be a piece of cake for our resident sage to dictate the proper way to interpret the constitution.

The supreme court may now disband.


-----------------
> COMMENTS: What do you have left after you "screw
> all of these armchair arguments? Blind random
> social policy? Or, more likely, policy by
> political power? That sounds good.

And yet by declaring that society, through the power of the state, has the right to intrude in a person's most intimate bodily decisions, Henry is arguing in favor of the very "policy by political power" that he purports to denounce.


-------------------
> COMMENT: No doubt. But that is one factor to be
> weighed in the abortion debate, along with the
> deaths of millions of fetuses.

In which Henry assumes his conclusion, for death can only occur where there is life--meaning that Henry has pronounced, from his throne and for everyone's benefit, that the fetus is alive.


----------------
> Noting that some
> women will die does not dictate any particular
> policy or solve a damn thing.

Here is the dispassionate, objective opinion of someone who cannot imagine the aftermath of a rape, the impossibility of a normal mother-child relationship after incest, or the prospect of a profoundly and permanently handicapped child; the armchair analysis of someone who thinks women's bodily integrity is an appropriate subject for society's intervention.


------------------
> It may be the bottom
> line of a common rhetorical argument, but it is
> NOT the bottom line of any *rational* argument.

Ah yes, "bottom line" indicating in typically passive-aggressive fashion that this post is a reply to mine and not to Dr. No's and revealing again that Henry believes women should be as "rational" as men in discussing their own physical autonomy.

I move that Henry be castrated. The chamber will entertain all reasoned, dispassionate views on the subject but no subjective opinions will be allowed.

"And thus Henry announces that the belief that a person should have control of her own body is "myopic dogma.""

COMMENT: Yes, if that is your only argument! After all, even beloved Roe dismissed such an idea. After all, someone might want to 'control their body' by drinking and driving. Fortunately, society thinks there are interests of others that need to be protected.
___________________________________________

"In which Henry again demonstrates that he does not understand that he lives in a constitutional republic, a form of government that in the name of the individual limits the power of the legislative majority."

COMMENT: Quite right, but the Constitution dictates what the rights and limitations of government are, and it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution, not you (or any state or federal legislature).
___________________________________________

"Wherein Henry reiterates his reasoned view that the state has the right to intrude on a person's bodily autonomy, thereby inviting a thread on the merits of his own forced sterilization--but only in objective, rational terms that would not admit any subjective views from him or anyone likewise situated."

COMMENT: What are you talking about? Bodily autonomy is not "a God given right." Rights are provided by governments through Constitutions (in a democracy). Raising stupid, incomplete, and rhetorical hypotheticals gets you nowhere.
___________________________________________

"It's at this point that the reader realizes Henry has no point to make. He starts by saying the state has the right to intervene in a person's medical decisions, then says that the right is subject to constitutional prohibitions, and concludes that it's all well and good as long as we follow "procedures"--neglecting the fact that the fundamental problem is disagreement over what those procedures are."

COMMENT: The procedures are provided in the law, and the result is the operation of law. Disagreement as to such procedures, are themselves subject to law. In representative government, the law can be changed via Constitutional amendment or legislation. If you don't like the procedures, or the law, your remedy is to go out and vote!
____________________________________________

"But hey, having solved our problem by declaring a priori that the state has the right to invade a woman's uterus, it should be a piece of cake for our resident sage to dictate the proper way to interpret the constitution."

COMMENT: The state [the government] does have the right "to invade a woman's uterus" (putting abortion limitations crudely) That is the law, irrespective of anyone's particular moral intuitions. Interpreting the Constitution is not up to me, or you. It is a Supreme Court mandate. The right-wing justices by judicial philosophy follow the 'letter of the law.' It is the liberal justices that like to rule 'a priori.'
_____________________________________________

-----------------
> COMMENTS: What do you have left after you "screw
> all of these armchair arguments? Blind random
> social policy? Or, more likely, policy by
> political power? That sounds good.

"And yet by declaring that society, through the power of the state, has the right to intrude in a person's most intimate bodily decisions, Henry is arguing in favor of the very "policy by political power" that he purports to denounce."

COMMENT: The Constitution *is* the ultimate power of a democratic government, and the ultimate authority as to the existence of privacy rights. The Constitution itself is non-political. It becomes political when some group wants the SC to expansively interpret the Constitution by interjecting their own personal values and rights into the Constitution that are not explicitly there. That is how politics enters into the matter. And that, by the way, is why conservative justices reject such legislative judicial expansions. The remedy within a changing society is a Constitutional amendment, not renegade judicial actions that are outside the letter of the Constitution and are only advanced to favor some political or social agenda, or SC Justices personal values. (That is the conservative argument.)
___________________________________________

-------------------
> COMMENT: No doubt. But that is one factor to be
> weighed in the abortion debate, along with the
> deaths of millions of fetuses.

"In which Henry assumes his conclusion, for death can only occur where there is life--meaning that Henry has pronounced, from his throne and for everyone's benefit, that the fetus is alive."

COMMENT: So, it is now controversial as to whether a fetus is alive? A living organism? My bad!
____________________________________________

----------------
> Noting that some
> women will die does not dictate any particular
> policy or solve a damn thing.

"Here is the dispassionate, objective opinion of someone who cannot imagine the aftermath of a rape, the impossibility of a normal mother-child relationship after incest, or the prospect of a profoundly and permanently handicapped child; the armchair analysis of someone who thinks women's bodily integrity is an appropriate subject for society's intervention."

COMMENT: Yes, to all of the above. But let's not forget that abortion is very controversial within the community of women. So, saying that men cannot fully 'imagine' the dilemma of pregnancy, however true, is a non-starter. Moreover, we men (and of course women too) *do* have an *understanding* of such things as biology, psychology, reproduction, child development, birth, life, death, and raising children, not to mention how the law works in a democratic society as to all such matters. So, even though we are not women, we might have something to say about such things.
_____________________________________

"Ah yes, "bottom line" indicating in typically passive-aggressive fashion that this post is a reply to mine and not to Dr. No's and revealing again that Henry believes women should be as "rational" as men in discussing their own physical autonomy."

COMMENT: No so. It was a reply to Dr. No. The reply to your ridiculous "bottom-line" comment was incidental. Oh, and I believe strongly that women both should be, and are, as rational as men in *all* matters, including matters related to abortion. Of course, there is always the exception to the rule, which I thank you for pointing out!
______________________________________________

"I move that Henry be castrated. The chamber will entertain all reasoned, dispassionate views on the subject but no subjective opinions will be allowed."

COMMENT: Ah, yes. A perfect conclusion to your post here. After all, a woman's right to abortion is identical to a man's right not to be castrated. A fine statement supporting both your rhetorical abilities, and the absence of your logic and reasoning skills.

But then bring on your outraged bandwagon groupies.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But then bring on your outraged bandwagon
> groupies.

Before all you outraged groupies jump on my bandwagon, let's see where Henry has brought us.

1) Henry thinks people who disagree with him are irrational, "stupid" "groupies."

2) Henry informs us that "bodily autonomy is not 'a God given right." Not sure whom he's arguing with there since I never said it was.

3) Henry says it's established fact that "a fetus is alive" for purposes of constitutional law. It is not.

4) Henry declares that "The state [the government] does have the right "to invade a woman's uterus."

5) Henry adds that the right to intervene in a a person's sexual autonomy does NOT apply to men, for the state could never legitimately discuss forcible vasectomy or castration.

6) It is "stupid, incomplete, and rhetorical" to suggest that governmental intrusion into a man's anatomy is comparable to state intervention in a woman's reproductive systems. He seems emotionally invested in this.

7) Henry provides perspective on his opinions by informing us that "the right-wing justices by judicial philosophy follow the 'letter of the law.' Having taken just one first-year course in constitutional law at some point during the Vietnam War, Henry is apparently unfamiliar with the Lochner Era cases of the 1930s.

8) Henry explains that "it is the liberal justices that like to rule 'a priori'" in matters like abortion. But Roe was decided by a vote of 7-2, with four of the seven in the majority being Republican-nominees.

9) Henry does not qualify his objection to the right-of-privacy logic, which in addition to abortion established the rights for people to use contraception, marry those of other races, marry those of the same gender, and engage in oral sex.

Perhaps he agrees with Spencer Kimball.

9) Henry states that "abortion is very controversial within the community of women." Gallup disagrees, telling us that over 80% of women object to the no-exception anti-abortion laws that are before the supreme court.* But hey, what does Gallup know about public opinion?

9) Henry "believe[s]trongly that women both should be, and are, as rational as men in *all* matters."

So where are we? Fetuses are alive, the state has the right to intervene in a woman's intimate decisions but not in a man's, it's liberals who created the right to abortion even though the majority of those justices were conservatives, and women--who should be as rational as men--are divided over abortion rights.

Now all you mindless, "stupid," "bandwagon" jumpers may have do as you please.



ETA: Gallup source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2022 05:43PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Henry thinks people who disagree with him are
> irrational, "stupid" "groupies."
> 6) "stupid, incomplete, and rhetorical"
> 8) Henry explains that "it is the liberal justices
> that like to rule 'a priori'"
> "stupid," "bandwagon"
===============================
So, lotsa labeling, recurrent attempts at denigration, one whataboutism, etc.

LW, yer not debating an empiricist.
Completely different objectives. Wrote about it yesterday in chicken - egg.
-- And here is your example.

Henry is awwright and one of us expatriates, -- but he's where he's at.
Might be entertaining to engage but in truth (for me) the "juice ain't worth the squeeze."


> Gallup source:
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx
===============================

Now this is actual data and so interesting and noteworthy (to an empiricist).
What's unexpected and striking is the stability and consistency.

Learned something, grazie

As a fellow empiricist, I wonder what is so hard about 1) looking up the composition of the Roe court, 2) finding out whether women really are divided on abortion, and 3) figuring out what it means when the supreme court decides that the right of privacy is not constitutional.

But then again, you and I are at a disadvantage insofar as we were not born with eternal truths programed into our little gray cells.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a fellow empiricist, I wonder what is so hard
> about 1) looking up the composition of the Roe
> court, 2) finding out whether women really are
> divided on abortion, and 3) figuring out what it
> means when the supreme court decides that the
> right of privacy is not constitutional.
===============================

Data is relevant only to an empiricist, be why.

Someone who believes they're equipped with integral GPS doesn't require landmarks from which to triangulate a position and plot a course (or even a map)

That's fine but it's a different ballgame

Has it's advantages.
I mean, Henry'd make a fine ethicist.

True, but if one claims to be a scientist a lack of interest in empirical reality is something of a handicap.

Dear Henry is more Plato than Aristotle--and it was the latter who contributed the greater part to the scientific revolution.

I agree it’s an impossible question to really answer from a purely scientific point of view, since scientists can’t even agree upon the definition of ‘life’.
Somebody upthread asked, “Is a sperm life? Is an egg?”

Personally, like I said in the OP, you have to draw the line somewhere, and some things like viruses, and sperm and eggs all occupy that line, between life and non-life.

So do embryos, and every day they become more and more like a viable human being.

I think my state, like most states in the US, has it about right and the whole West coast has it about right. And we’ll fight like hell to defend that right. We’ll form an Underground Railroad and get refugees out of Gilead.

If the West Coast broke away from the rest of America they’d make China the biggest economy in the world, Cascadia would be #2 and Gilead would be #3.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2022 01:37AM by schrodingerscat.

You can’t legislate morals. Abortion is going to exist whether it’s legal or not. That’s the reality. Do you want a safe professional environment to do abortions or do you want seedy butcher shops ran by criminal elements? I would say keeping abortion legal is the best option. Let’s say it’s choosing the lesser of two evils.

You abort a fetus and you are killing a human being. That’s the reality of it. You destroyed the body of someone who was developing in the womb.

In your opinion. People have a lot of different opinions about it. Not everyone shares your opinion.

Aborted and miscarried fetuses are not issued birth certificates. They do not have rights of inheritance. Normally even the so-called "pro-life" churches will not bury their remains on hallowed ground. So it would appear that fetuses are somewhere in that gray area. That's what Rowe was trying to address.