|
VSOKUL girl posted:why can't we do that? the EU can... say strong words and maybe do something about the governments of Hungary and Poland, we should be able to do maybe something to Texas Same reason Trump couldn't sanction California and other blue states for passing sanctuary state laws banning state authorities from cooperating with ICE in various ways. He tried, but the courts overwhelmingly rejected his efforts, finding that they were illegal and unconstitutional in several ways. The president just does not have the authority to do that in the American system.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
It’s also pretty clear the President can only assassinate Americans on foreign soil, so as they as they just stay at home like Kissinger that’s right out
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:If I were to incarcerate you, I'd be controlling you. Do you mind if i play devil's advocate here? While I am _strongly_ on the side of free choice for woman and their bodies, sometimes its good to steelman the other side of the argument. ok, here it goes: At what point does the segment of the population that is currently gestating within a woman get protections? 40 weeks? 30 weeks? 20? If the fetus would be viable outside the womb at say, 28 weeks, would those late term abortions _for purposes of birth control_ be in fact murder? (and going back to my normal PoV, I understand that hardly anyone has an elective abortion at that late date. The only reason to terminate the pregnancy would be in cases of risks to the mother, or severe birth defects of the fetus that would not make it viable outside the womb)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Cimber posted:ok, here it goes: At what point does the segment of the population that is currently gestating within a woman get protections? 40 weeks? 30 weeks? 20? If the fetus would be viable outside the womb at say, 28 weeks, would those late term abortions _for purposes of birth control_ be in fact murder? I don't think this has to be particularly nebulous. Personhood should be a function of the capability for higher brain functions, which develop predominantly during the third trimester. Call it beginning of third trimester to be safe, if you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Do you mind if i play devil's advocate here? While I am _strongly_ on the side of free choice for woman and their bodies, sometimes its good to steelman the other side of the argument. Why would it matter whether the abortion was for birth control or to save the mother’s life if your reason for preventing it had to do with the rights of the fetus? Even a fetus that will die immediately after being born presumably has the right to be born if that’s the idea we’re lighting on here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
I believe the philosopher and Princeton professor Peter Singer has argued that what matters is the capability of expressing a preference, so by that analysis, executing infants would be fine, but executing animals isn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Cimber posted:ok, here it goes: At what point does the segment of the population that is currently gestating within a woman get protections? 40 weeks? 30 weeks? 20? If the fetus would be viable outside the womb at say, 28 weeks, would those late term abortions _for purposes of birth control_ be in fact murder? A fetus is incapable of making decisions regarding bodily autonomy. The parasitic life form neither has the capability to make the kinds of decisions associated with bodily autonomy, not does it have the right to demand a human host's body functions for support. The core right of property is right of denial of use A human with bodily autonomy ought to own is own body and thus have the right to deny use by other things. Organ donation cannot be forced. Blood donation cannot be forced. Gestation cannot be forced, or at least it shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
To force a human into giving its body functions to another is to conscript that human into forced service that denies their bodily autonomy and right of bodily ownership to deny use. Pro-life policies thus go farther than just controlling women, they deface the core tenets of the value of human sentience. It is everything that is wrong with conscription, slavery, and misogyny all wrapped into one massive sum of evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Do you mind if i play devil's advocate here? While I am _strongly_ on the side of free choice for woman and their bodies, sometimes its good to steelman the other side of the argument. Never. The fetus never has the right to force another person to provide it with nutrients through a weird fleshy tube in its abdomen. Likewise, if the fetus wishes to detach itself from its mother, the mother should be legally powerless to prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Cimber posted:ok, here it goes: At what point does the segment of the population that is currently gestating within a woman get protections? 40 weeks? 30 weeks? 20? If the fetus would be viable outside the womb at say, 28 weeks, would those late term abortions _for purposes of birth control_ be in fact murder? It should be obvious to anyone that's read the Torah that babies don't count until they're at least a month old, so I'm going to say 43 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad, your posts here are excellent. And yeah, I want to kind of echo what they are saying. As is often the case, the abortion 'debate' is one where even if you grant that the premises Conservatives are putting forth are true (they are not) their conclusion is still factually and morally wrong. Even when they are right, they are wrong. If a child needs an organ transplant or even a simple blood transfusion to survive, the state does not have the authority to compel a parent to give their child blood or organs. The right to deny other entities access to your body and its functions is literally what separates persons not merely from animals, but from property. Like we even recognize as a society that generally speaking the bodily autonomy of animals should be respected with certain exceptions and that if someone randomly antagonizes or harms animals they are a disturbed individual who needs professional help. If you grant that human life begins at the moment of conception, the mother still has the right - by simple virtue of being a human being - to deny that person access to their body. You can certainly make a cogent argument that they are behaving in a selfish and morally incorrect manner in such a scenario, sure, but as long as you accept that they are a person and not a thing, they have a clear right to decide 'no, I will not give this other person access to my body. Tough luck.' If women and transpeople with wombs are people, then they have the right to an abortion at any point during pregnancy. If they do not have this right, then they are not people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
What's interesting about the Abortion issue is the degree to which ideological response subverts expectations. Under other circumstances one would very much expect the Republicans to be championing the Pro-Choice position. American Conservatives, with their focus on liberty and the rights of the individual are about as close to just being Classical Liberals as you can get. The bodily autonomy/forced blood donation argument should have them dead to rights because it is absolutely their wheelhouse. The people who complain the most about big government intrusion and Uncle Sam having his hand in their pocket also being totally fine with Brandon having his hand down the front of their pants is pretty  None of this actually matters of course since ideological principles are little more than a red herring for as often as they're actually antecedents to voter behavior. AKA What they SAY they believe and what they actually DO in the real world have ZERO connection. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:What's interesting about the Abortion issue is the degree to which ideological response subverts expectations. american political parties, especially at the national level, are patchwork big tent coalitions of strange bedfellows. there is no driving ideological force behind them. rhetoric is generated as needed to justify some patch's niche issue within a purported framework of political thought as needed to fill airtime with the commentary class
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:
They have never believed this. Like, ever. Jim Crow? McCarthyism? Union-busting? Criminalizing homosexuality? Criminalizing sex work? The drug war? The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Opposing all kinds of rights of the accused? Anti-immigrant? There are some classical liberal types like you describe who align themselves with conservatives because they're for business, but an ideological belief in liberty and the rights of the individual has never been the intellectual foundation of conservatism. I mean you can tell from the name, conservatism is about upholding traditions which sometimes overlaps with classical liberal ideas (not regulating business, etc) but often does not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
TBF I don't recognize this in conservatism either. Most accurately conservatism is about dressing white supremacy up in however many coats of paint necessary until people vote for it, and making up the difference with naked authoritarian power grabs. There's plenty of traditions that conservatives can't wait to throw out, so much so that it's difficult to figure out what rights or guarantees they unequivocally, across the board support. Housing? Health? Voting? Sexuality? Equality? Even the "right to life" movement, its true aims disguised or otherwise, is "abortion for me, not for thee."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
VSOKUL girl posted:american political parties, especially at the national level, are patchwork big tent coalitions of strange bedfellows. there is no driving ideological force behind them. rhetoric is generated as needed to justify some patch's niche issue within a purported framework of political thought as needed to fill airtime with the commentary class VitalSigns posted:They have never believed this. Like, ever. I added a bolded portion to my last paragraph to make it a little clearer that this was already the aforementioned conclusion. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:TBF I don't recognize this in conservatism either. Well that's one of the traditions. But yes true they don't want to uphold all traditions. They are also hypercapitalist, supporting an economic system that tears apart traditional human relationships and commodifies everything, the ideology isn't exactly coherent. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 11:53
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Do you mind if i play devil's advocate here? While I am _strongly_ on the side of free choice for woman and their bodies, sometimes its good to steelman the other side of the argument. None. If a woman needs an abortion 8.5 months in then that’s her call and nobody else’s unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she got pregnant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:None. If a woman needs an abortion 8.5 months in then that’s her call and nobody else’s unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she got pregnant. I do think it is different if it is viable outside her body. If she wants to end the pregnancy that is fine, but we aren't really talking about needing an abortion anymore. edit: and yeah, I'm aware that this situation that conservatives scream about almost doesn't exist at all (its virtually always a tragic case where the intention had been to have the child and never about just changing your mind), but the post I'm replying to was very specifically going there. Rigel fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I do think it is different if it is viable outside her body. If she wants to end the pregnancy that is fine, but we aren't really talking about needing an abortion anymore. I have honestly not heard of a single case where the woman just 'wanted an abortion' at like the 8th month or whatever was well past viability to a perfectly healthy fetus, even from rabid pro-lifers. Most of the late-term abortions are either 'the fetus looks fine except it has no brain/lungs/liver/insert vital organ here' or 'the mother is going to die if she tries to carry this fetus to term' because of preeclampsia or sudden cancer diagnosis or kidney failure or complications from diabetes or what have you, or just past whatever state's cutoff is (and a lot of them are ridiculously low like 16 weeks). 22 weeks is pretty much the hard cutoff date for viability and the majority of those births tend to have terrible complications like CP. quote:As a proportion of all deliveries including stillbirths, virtually no babies born at 22 weeks survive. And among only the live births at this very early stage, just 7.3 percent of babies survive. But survival rates surge to 24 percent for the subset of these babies who can be admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Oracle posted:
FWIW, the first three weeks don't even count, since the woman isn't pregnant at that point. They start counting weeks from day her menstral cycle ended. My daughter was born at 36 weeks 5 days by C-section, as my wife had issues with her cervix. Because she was considered 'premature' they wisked her off into the NICU as a matter of policy. She was fine, but we got hammered by hospital bills for specialist cost. Fun fact, our doctor and the hospital were in network, but the NICU doctor was out of network. hellloooooo 15,000 hospital bill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:None. If a woman needs an abortion 8.5 months in then that’s her call and nobody else’s unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she got pregnant. That same logic could be applied to allow infanticide: “it should be her call if the infant lives or dies, unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she had a child”. The cutoffs are arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
morothar posted:That same logic could be applied to allow infanticide: “it should be her call if the infant lives or dies, unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she had a child”. If only there was something different between a child and a fetus that we could use to make that distinction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
morothar posted:That same logic could be applied to allow infanticide: “it should be her call if the infant lives or dies, unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she had a child”. It really can't, for fairly obvious physical and social reasons that any would be aware of if they were of the moral character to be trusted to hold someone's baby for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
morothar posted:That same logic could be applied to allow infanticide: “it should be her call if the infant lives or dies, unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she had a child”. "if we apply logic inconsistently we can reach stupid conclusions," how incisive
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Dameius posted:If only there was something different between a child and a fetus that we could use to make that distinction. What’s the difference between an 8.5 month old fetus and a baby that’s been born at 34 weeks, other than location?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
morothar posted:What’s the difference between an 8.5 month old fetus and a baby that’s been born at 34 weeks, other than location? Other than time and place and a number of physical differences best compared to a car crash with a happy ending, minimal I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There are some classical liberal types like you describe who align themselves with conservatives because they're for business, but an ideological belief in liberty and the rights of the individual has never been the intellectual foundation of conservatism. And 99% of these dorks either read John Locke once and decided to argue against taxes and age of consent, or survive purely to be privileged contrarian dumdums. There is no ideological honesty on the right. They’re all arguing backward from “I’ll do what I want and gently caress you.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
morothar posted:That same logic could be applied to allow infanticide: “it should be her call if the infant lives or dies, unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she had a child”. Not really, you can give away a child to someone else in a second without killing it or risking the mother's life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
morothar posted:What’s the difference between an 8.5 month old fetus and a baby that’s been born at 34 weeks, other than location? Location is a pretty central difference for most laws and ethical systems to the point where a change in location is often enough to render something legal illegal, and vice versa. Especially when one of the locations is "inside someone else's body". But its obviously not at all the only difference here. There's intent - the goal of an abortion is to end a pregnancy, the goal of killing a baby can never be to end a pregnancy. There's relative risk - there's no risk to a parent putting a born baby up for adoption. There's always a risk associated with actual deliver. Theres necessity for outcomes - we dont actually enslave women to born children, so they dont need to kill a baby to no longer be responsible for it. A pregnant woman does need to abort to no longer support the fetus Theres statistical differences as well of course - a great many abortions are done on non viable fetuses, but very murders of born babies are done on nonviable babies. Then of course theres the fact that we are talking about abortions, specifically, which are literally impossible to do on something that has been born, so the act itself is also different. The cutoff for at birth is tbe least arbitrary cutoff you could possibly have, it is anything but arbitrary, nearly every aspect that goes into weighing legality has changed at that point
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
morothar posted:What’s the difference between an 8.5 month old fetus and a baby that’s been born at 34 weeks, other than location? Alternatively, you could try entering a military base and insist that you have a right to be there because what is the difference between a person on the base or off of it, other than location?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
What's the difference between putting my knife in my drawer and your stomach other than location?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
I’ve gotta imagine if you’re getting an abortion at 8.5 months, something has gone seriously wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’ve gotta imagine if you’re getting an abortion at 8.5 months, something has gone seriously wrong. Exactly. If you need a medical intervention at 8.5 months, it’s either one of these things: -the fetus has severe defects and is either already dead or will be soon -the mother has developed a severe complication and staying pregnant would put both of them at risk (and in this case it’s an early birth rather than abortion, they try to save the fetus and will almost certainly succeed at 8.5 months) That probably covers literally every pregnancy that ended at 8.5 months for the last decade or more. You can imagine some kind of insane scenario involving coercion and restraint to put someone in a situation where they didn’t want to be pregnant but weren’t able to do anything about it until that point, but now you’re in the same rhetorical boat as Scalia saying 24 justifies torture
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
I mean, someone could easily live in Alabama ans not be able to get an abortion for months since they couldn't afford travel out of state
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’ve gotta imagine if you’re getting an abortion at 8.5 months, something has gone seriously wrong. Yeah that's the thing the case of a woman carrying a baby almost to term and then changing her mind at the last second in a flight of fancy doesn't really happen. Even if you genuinely wanted to save the lives of fetuses, the lives saved here are entirely theoretical, enforcing an 8.5 month ban would in practice save zero lives because it's aimed at a problem that doesn't exist. But restricting women from getting medically necessary abortions or just making them harder to get does cost lives, which is the only thing these laws can do, it's just going to kill women without saving any babies, destroying actual lives, not that "pro-life" people care about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
Keeping in mind, a woman changing her mind at 8mos is something she should be allowed to do, even if it's not realistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Keeping in mind, a woman changing her mind at 8mos is something she should be allowed to do, even if it's not realistic. I agree, just saying that even if someone doesn't believe women should have that autonomy, prohibition of it is still going to cost more lives than it can possibly save, so when a "pro-life"-er starts going off about 8.5 month abortions, you know that they either a) have a child's understanding of law and medicine and childbirth or b) don't actually care about lives at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They have never believed this. Like, ever. By belief in liberty and individual rights they mean the law doesn't bind the in-class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
You don't even have to get near those hypotheticals, with anything short of legal to birth no prosecutor's office can be trusted not to criminalize miscarriages, selectively in the worst way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 03:00
|
|
