Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

[Trunkage]

They see the difference, they don't care about the difference. If you like a certain genre of whatever, you like it because of the similarities. Both sides have prioritized a different moral value in the abortion moral dilemma and it's very hard to convince someone to say the other one is more important than their chosen one. You probably can't be convinced, right? Why would someone else be able to be convinced then? Hence, why I never argued that pro-choice or pro-life was the right side and only said the Roe decision was poor from a legal standpoint.

Great. We now have a bunch of women dead... because you couldn't be bothered. Like, what kind of position is that?

Here's the thing. I actually don't care what Tstorm believes about fetus and abortions. I care that they have DICTATED to everyone else how they should live. If Tstorm kept their beliefs to themselves, there would be no problem.

 

[Trunkage]

...and it is. Good policy but poor law. A lot of pro-choice arguments fall into that sort of thing, being good policy defended poorly. Especially ones that argue that abortion rights are just an application of some broader principle, because often that broader principle will be argued to just not apply in most other cases where it might be controversial.

A yes, let's get slavery back everyone. You just have to knock down one executive order, and you can enslave anyone

 

[Trunkage]

My argument is that the distinction you're making isn't based in reality. Why would I "add some distinction"? A fetus is a living human organism, it is just as much alive as you or I, the lack of that distinction is my argument.

Unlike most people here, I think Phoenix is on the right side of more arguments than not... but Phoenix is really not good at argumentation, I would not be taking pointers from him.

My argument that your non-distinction isn't based in any reality.

No, I dont not think a fetus alive until week 15 at the minimum

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Great. We now have a bunch of women dead... because you couldn't be bothered. Like, what kind of position is that?

Here's the thing. I actually don't care what Tstorm believes about fetus and abortions. I care that they have DICTATED to everyone else how they should live. If Tstorm kept their beliefs to themselves, there would be no problem.

I couldn't be bothered? You think if I wrote a congressman or something, Roe wouldn't have gotten overturned? And like most people, I'm in a state where it doesn't matter who I vote for.

Aren't laws just basically what the majority believes the law should be? And don't laws dictate how everyone else should live in some manner? Why is Tstorms' belief about what the law should be less valid than your belief of what the law should be? The abortion issue is a very morally complex issue that most of you keep ignoring. Again, everyone is for bodily autonomy and everyone is for preserving life, those 2 morals clash together on the abortion issue. I bet you were for mandating covid vaccines (even though there's was no evidence for community benefit) even though that's against against one's bodily autonomy. Everyone has a point where then another moral trumps said moral. That's abortion in a nutshell.

 

[Trunkage]

I couldn't be bothered? You think if I wrote a congressman or something, Roe wouldn't have gotten overturned? And like most people, I'm in a state where it doesn't matter who I vote for.

Aren't laws just basically what the majority believes the law should be? And don't laws dictate how everyone else should live in some manner? Why is Tstorms' belief about what the law should be less valid than your belief of what the law should be? The abortion issue is a very morally complex issue that most of you keep ignoring. Again, everyone is for bodily autonomy and everyone is for preserving life, those 2 morals clash together on the abortion issue. I bet you were for mandating covid vaccines (even though there's was no evidence for community benefit) even though that's against against one's bodily autonomy. Everyone has a point where then another moral trumps said moral. That's abortion in a nutshell.

Firstly, let's take the Roe position to Tstorm's position. Roe's position never impacted Tstorm personally. They could keep their baby if they wanted. if that's what their beliefs dictated. The converse is not true. I cannot follow my beliefs under Tstorm's laws. Roe allows more religious freedom than Tstorm's position

I'll note that many people are wanting MORE choice that what Roe offered. Nor have I needed to use abortion services, nor is my opinion on abortion based on whether a fetus is alive at conception

Secondly, I would say that some laws are from the majority. Some are from corporations. Some laws are deliberately set up to make sure majority mob rule doesn't happen

Third, we have a bunch of vaccine mandates in Australia. You can lose benefits and barred from accessing child care centres. There are options to get around it, but you aren't being responsible, so you have a cost.
If you are talking about the COVID vaccine specifically, there was a mandate for the first vaccines, certain industries mandated a booster, like child care and nursing homes. But, from the start, our government was talking about this was the path they were going to take. I'm pretty sure the CDC was asking for a vaccine and booster before fully opening again too. The COVID vaccine was temporary mandates and they too had alternative option for those not wanting the vaccine

Also, a million died of COVID in 2 years in the US, 200,000 died in the second 2 years. Vaccines saved hundreds of thousands of lives

 

[tstorm823]

Why does that attribute matter? Its a distinct, human organism, which you previously indicated was enough to warrant protection.

Do you really need me to explain that you can't kill what's already dead?

No, I dont not think a fetus alive until week 15 at the minimum

There is absolutely no basis for that.

 

[Silvanus]

Do you really need me to explain that you can't kill what's already dead?

No. I want you to put some thought into what being dead means.

 

[Trunkage]

There is absolutely no basis for that.

Yes, I know that what you think

 

[tstorm823]

No. I want you to put some thought into what being dead means.

The same list of things being alive is, but in reverse. Can't move, can't create or consume energy, can't grow, can't respond to stimuli, etc.

 

[Ag3ma]

...and it is. Good policy but poor law. A lot of pro-choice arguments fall into that sort of thing, being good policy defended poorly. Especially ones that argue that abortion rights are just an application of some broader principle, because often that broader principle will be argued to just not apply in most other cases where it might be controversial.

This is normal. To adapt/paraphrase Betrand Russell, any principle adhered to absolutely ends in absurdity or atrocity.

Indeed, it's obvious in the way any system operates. Rights and principles inevitably come into conflict, and when they do, something has to bend. However, that principles are not absolute is different from treating them as worthless hypocrisy - the end result of that is just nihilism. They are values that must be weighed against other values.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Thus, if you live a heinous life, devoid of love and separate from the grace of God, you trap yourself in an eternal hell of your own creation.

And why is that bad?

There is absolutely no basis for that.

Says the person who claims that a zygote has a soul..

Here's a fun question. Do monozygotic twins only have one soul between them? If not, then at what point in the process does the second soul arrive? Has modern science measured that, do you think?

Fun aside, the basis is obvious. Humans are not single-celled organisms. Our life is the product of trillions of cells working in unison. A human who dies and whose organs are used for transplants is not alive (at least, not in any literal sense) even though living cells from their body still exist. A life does not end when the last cell from a human body dies, it ends when the cumulative action of cells that supports the life of a multicellular organism ends. To say that a human life begins with a single cell is inconsistent with the basic nature of multicellular organisms.

Again, just because you do not like ambiguity does not mean we have to accept a reductive and incorrect view of the universe.

 

[Silvanus]

The same list of things being alive is, but in reverse. Can't move, can't create or consume energy, can't grow, can't respond to stimuli, etc.

All attributes shared by countless things that you don't believe warrant the same protection. You yourself have been arguing that these abilities and attributes are not the differentiating factors. Yet when questioned on the differences, they... boil down to those same attributes and abilities you previously dismissed?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Firstly, let's take the Roe position to Tstorm's position. Roe's position never impacted Tstorm personally. They could keep their baby if they wanted. if that's what their beliefs dictated. The converse is not true. I cannot follow my beliefs under Tstorm's laws. Roe allows more religious freedom than Tstorm's position

I'll note that many people are wanting MORE choice that what Roe offered. Nor have I needed to use abortion services, nor is my opinion on abortion based on whether a fetus is alive at conception

Secondly, I would say that some laws are from the majority. Some are from corporations. Some laws are deliberately set up to make sure majority mob rule doesn't happen

Third, we have a bunch of vaccine mandates in Australia. You can lose benefits and barred from accessing child care centres. There are options to get around it, but you aren't being responsible, so you have a cost.
If you are talking about the COVID vaccine specifically, there was a mandate for the first vaccines, certain industries mandated a booster, like child care and nursing homes. But, from the start, our government was talking about this was the path they were going to take. I'm pretty sure the CDC was asking for a vaccine and booster before fully opening again too. The COVID vaccine was temporary mandates and they too had alternative option for those not wanting the vaccine

Also, a million died of COVID in 2 years in the US, 200,000 died in the second 2 years. Vaccines saved hundreds of thousands of lives

What about the impact on the baby (the baby could be you at a point in time)? It's not really a religious belief per se (for some it is obviously) but it's a moral quagmire regardless of religion.

Biden in the US tried to force private businesses to mandate a vaccine that he knew was unconstitutional and did it anyway. Many people got fired because of not wanting a covid vaccine. Several colleges were forcing the young to get boosters to go to school, pretty ridiculous. The point is forcing someone to get a covid vaccine didn't yield any community benefit so why are you forcing people to get something that only affects them personally? Other vaccines, if you have X amount of people getting them, you basically eliminate the disease, covid was not that at all.

 

[Schadrach]

This is normal. To adapt/paraphrase Betrand Russell, any principle adhered to absolutely ends in absurdity or atrocity.

Indeed, it's obvious in the way any system operates. Rights and principles inevitably come into conflict, and when they do, something has to bend. However, that principles are not absolute is different from treating them as worthless hypocrisy - the end result of that is just nihilism. They are values that must be weighed against other values.

They tend to come at it from the other direction though, it's less "I believe in X and Y, but X and Y are in conflict here so either one has to give way to the other or both need to bend" and more "I support abortion, and therefore believe in X because it's a convenient argument for abortion. When it's not a convenient argument for something I support, X is no longer relevant." It's less about principles coming into conflict and more about what justifications are useful for what you want.

 

[Schadrach]

A yes, let's get slavery back everyone. You just have to knock down one executive order, and you can enslave anyone

You mean a constitutional amendment, because there's one of those that bans "involuntary servitude". You know, because an executive order is flimsy legally - any passed legislation trumps an EO. Hence passing the 13th Amendment which explicitly bans "involuntary servitude", as the only way to get rid of or supersede one of those is to pass another one, which requires 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of States to be on board.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Correct. The essential nature is "a flock of sheep" either way.

"Essential nature" is an odd way to describe the result of a choice to group things into a category in your own mind. The flock is in your brain.

 

[Trunkage]

You mean a constitutional amendment, because there's one of those that bans "involuntary servitude". You know, because an executive order is flimsy legally - any passed legislation trumps an EO. Hence passing the 13th Amendment which explicitly bans "involuntary servitude", as the only way to get rid of or supersede one of those is to pass another one, which requires 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of States to be on board.

Slavery didn't end with that amendment. You forgot half of it

The slavers got around it. You just had to make up charges and you got a slave for life. This was enhanced by the Black Codes that meant quitting your job, gambling, drinking, swearing or owning a razor to shave your beard.... but then, it didn't really matter because they'd just fabricate evidence. Then they got a fine they couldnt pay. Some plantation or mine owner would pay the fine and have a slave. The federal government tried to stop the plantation owners manipulating the system like this but this was completely legal under the 13th Amendment

Because it was so easy to get new slaves from random Freeman, conditions were generally WORSE than before the 13th Amendment. The death rate was 30%ish which far exceeds most gulags and is Nazi concentration camp territory

It wasnt until Roosevelt made an EO during WW2 that slavery legally ended. All you have to do is remove that EO, fake some charges and you have slaves again

 

[Trunkage]

What about the impact on the baby (the baby could be you at a point in time)? It's not really a religious belief per se (for some it is obviously) but it's a moral quagmire regardless of religion.

Biden in the US tried to force private businesses to mandate a vaccine that he knew was unconstitutional and did it anyway. Many people got fired because of not wanting a covid vaccine. Several colleges were forcing the young to get boosters to go to school, pretty ridiculous. The point is forcing someone to get a covid vaccine didn't yield any community benefit so why are you forcing people to get something that only affects them personally? Other vaccines, if you have X amount of people getting them, you basically eliminate the disease, covid was not that at all.

My position on abortion is partially built on what happens AFTEE the birth. Due to my job, I know too many children who have been raped and abused by their family, many time until they commited suicide. Most of this happens because parents are being forced into situations they should not be in. Caring about what happens before birth ignores most of the problems. Forcing people into situations just leads to more violence

I'm also a person that favours some near the middle of the pregnancy. The fetus is able to be more like an organism at this time, making align more with your argument. It gives parents time to decided if they can actually care for a baby or find alternatives.

And just for clarity. Roe did not pick a random week. Most people had their own reasons to pick some were between 15 to 30 weeks. They were picking something similar to match society expectations, even if you think the argument is flimsy. Back then, while Catholics, for example, might be against abortion, they respected other people opinions. Because it didnt stop them from enacting their beliefs. What's happening right now is that a small portion of the American populace is pretending that religious freedom means that their religion is free to do crimes and be the only standard for morals and laws. I.e. it's un-American

As to your other point, I have two questions. What are the current mandates? What were the mandates in 2022?

 

[tstorm823]

To say that a human life begins with a single cell is inconsistent with the basic nature of multicellular organisms.

That is not at all inconsistent.

All attributes shared by countless things that you don't believe warrant the same protection.

Are those things human? Cause if they are human and alive, they warrant the same protection.

 

[Silvanus]

Are those things human? Cause if they are human and alive, they warrant the same protection.

OK, so it depends on being 1) human and 2) having these secondary attributes; but neither individually warrants protection?

So, we take something human, and add some attributes common to other random non-human things, that counts?