SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Seras]

The violinist argument doesn't work. Because unlike a pregnancy the individual didn't agree to an act that they knew could result in another person becoming dependent on them.

This is probably the best argument against the Violin Analogy I have ever heard. I thought it was quite good when I heard it.

Answering The Best Pro Choice Argument - YouTube

 

[Stargazer]

... Which is why it's an analogy. That's how analogy works. Saying 'but your analogy doesn't happen in the real world' isn't really a valid objection to an analogy. Valid objections are more along the lines of "The analogy doesn't work because it is different in a key area", for example. Like the problem with the classic violinist argument in regards to a consensual pregnancy is that it pretends there was no consent. Or @Bacle argued that the time span was off in what I proposed (I disagree with that argument, but it is a potentially viable lane of attack). Saying it doesn't exist in the real world simply isn't a good argument. I could have had a wizard replace the doctor if I wanted, the analogy would be just as strong. Honestly, using an evil wizard here is more accurate, as the doctor is sorta a stand in for the rapist not the abortionist.

Also, look up direct blood transfusions, they literally do just that, only for hours/minutesnot for months.

Well, if you want a difference in a key area, then the violinist was already going to die before being connected. Disconnecting the violinist wouldn't be the medical cause of death; the condition that was killing him originally would be. So you would not be morally responsible for their death if you wanted to disconnect.

Also, the violinist likely shares moral responsibility for cooperating with the procedure.

This is not the same as a pregnancy where abortion specifically causes the death of the child, a death that wouldn't happen if no action to kill the child was taken.

It's wrong in general, it's right in specific cases (this applies to most things). Like self defense, or if you never consented to having the kid.

I disagree that it is justified specifically in this case. What if the child is one month old? Does not consenting to have the infant give the mother the right to kill the infant?

Well I'm not; I'm an agnostic who believes abortion should be available as an option to those women who's pregnancy endangers their lives, and those who's children are shown in the womb to have serious birth defects, as well as rape victims. And I say that as someone who is autistic, knowing I would have been aborted using that criteria.

See above. If it's not a valid justification to kill a one month old child, it's not a valid justification to kill a child one month before birth. Or four. Or six. Or eight. Etc. And birth defects and disabilities are no justification to just kill a one month old infant.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I do business with a lot of aspies, about the only thing that frustrates me is that they tend to be extremely polarized in their reasoning and that it's very difficult to convince them to go along with anything they believe is not the right way to do something.

I actually laughed when I read that. You have indeed met a fair few of us!

I dunno why you'd wanna abort autistic people. Even the wall screeching ones...there are methods of correcting and helping them overtime.

That's exactly what my special needs school did. When they calmed down they were actually rather chilled out people. They didn't mean to hurt anyone, it's just that we don't handle frustration well at all and are easily overloaded. When I was younger I'd bash myself in the head with my fist when I got things wrong or couldn't make sense of something.

It's often been said that we don't feel emotion, but I can categorically say that is a lie. We feel it very powerfully, can't make sense of it, and struggle to control it. Doesn't mean the "lower functioning" should be aborted.

 

[Sailor.X]

you really dont like having money do you?

I was betting it would take 12 hours before it would come out.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

Adoption system needs reforms

I've petitioned my local representatives countless times. Marsha Blackburn actually replied to me and said she plans to tackle it, but you know politicians, promises are wind.

 

[Cherico]

I was betting it would take 12 hours before it would come out.

even 12 minutes was a reach man.

 

[Zachowon]

I've petitioned my local representatives countless times. Marsha Blackburn actually replied to me and said she plans to tackle it, but you know politicians, promises are wind.

Right but I think should adoption system be fixed as well as all the other alternatives then Roe v Wade would not have been as controversial

 

[Ixian]

Right but I think should adoption system be fixed as well as all the other alternatives then Roe v Wade would not have been as controversial

You'll find no argument from me that our adoption and foster care services are abysmal.

But in my opinion a life in an abysmal public service is better than no life at all.

 

[Bacle]

That's exactly what my special needs school did. When they calmed down they were actually rather chilled out people. They didn't mean to hurt anyone, it's just that we don't handle frustration well at all and are easily overloaded. When I was younger I'd bash myself in the head with my fist when I got things wrong or couldn't make sense of something.

It's often been said that we don't feel emotion, but I can categorically say that is a lie. We feel it very powerfully, can't make sense of it, and struggle to control it. Doesn't mean the "lower functioning" should be aborted.

I envy you for being in a setting like that; when I was young most parents seemed to think you could just use therapy and meds to make an autistic person 'normal', without considering things like the home situation or if maybe the meds were making things worse, not better. And they didn't realize that maybe autistic people are not wired the same way, so won't pick up the same ques or inflections in things.

The treatment of autistic kids has gotten so much better since my days in grade school, and I'm very happy actual schools to help them have been set up.

Autistic kids these days have a lot better prospects than those born even a few decades ago.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I've petitioned my local representatives countless times. Marsha Blackburn actually replied to me and said she plans to tackle it, but you know politicians, promises are wind.

Go read up on Nancy Scheafer.

The reason why they will never tackle it is because CPS agents.make so much money seizing kids from good homes and selling them that they murdered a sitting Senator in her own home to prevent reform. After she released a report on their criminal activity.

 

[Abhorsen]

Well, if you want a difference in a key area, then the violinist was already going to die before being connected. Disconnecting the violinist wouldn't be the medical cause of death; the condition that was killing him originally would be. So you would not be morally responsible for their death if you wanted to disconnect.

See, that applies to the fetus too though. In contrast to consensual sex, the rape victim was not the cause of the baby being attached to her, and would never had existed otherwise.

And both disconnecting and an abortion would be directly causing a death that would, minus that action, not occur. It's in fact, exactly the same as you describe here:

This is not the same as a pregnancy where abortion specifically causes the death of the child, a death that wouldn't happen if no action to kill the child was taken.

Both introduce an additional death into the world. But if you want to dodge here, fine! A wizard conjures a baby that's attached to you in a similar manner described by the violinist. Can you morally detach the baby and cause it to die. Not would you (I wouldn't, or at least I'd like to think I wouldn't) but could you do it morally? I say yes.

Also, the violinist likely shares moral responsibility for cooperating with the procedure.

I literally established that he didn't. I said he was in a coma, and never suggested or asked for this. Read what I wrote?

The violinist is in a coma, is a good person, and didn't ask for this.

I disagree that it is justified specifically in this case. What if the child is one month old? Does not consenting to have the infant give the mother the right to kill the infant?

No (assuming you mean after birth, not a 1 month fetus). There's no right to kill the infant, there is only a right to bodily autonomy, which results in an infants death.

A person voluntary cedes part of this right if they have sex: men take the risk of STDs, women the risk of STDs and pregnancy from certain forms of sex. But the rape victim never did, and so retains the ability to make the choice to stop carrying the fetus. That's it. She does not have the right to choose that the fetus be killed if it could be saved from a via a risky (to the baby) early birth procedure, just to end the pregnancy.

 

[History Learner]

Praise to be God, that evil has been dealt a serious blow! Let none doubt the meaning of this decision on the day of the Feast of the Sacred Heart as well as the Nativity of John the Baptist.

 

[Stargazer]

See, that applies to the fetus too though. In contrast to consensual sex, the rape victim was not the cause of the baby being attached to her, and would never had existed otherwise.

And both disconnecting and an abortion would be directly causing a death that would, minus that action, not occur. It's in fact, exactly the same as you describe here:

Both introduce an additional death into the world. But if you want to dodge here, fine! A wizard conjures a baby that's attached to you in a similar manner described by the violinist. Can you morally detach the baby and cause it to die. Not would you (I wouldn't, or at least I'd like to think I wouldn't) but could you do it morally? I say yes.

There is nothing killing the fetus, no cause for the fetus' death apart from whatever action is taken to kill the fetus and remove it from the womb. So no, I reject that what I said applies to the fetus.

You could suggest that aliens could clone Mother Teresa and use a transporter beam to insert her into my body. It's never going to happen, and as a result I don't think it has any real bearing on the question of whether or not a mother has the right to kill her unborn child.

I literally established that he didn't. I said he was in a coma, and never suggested or asked for this. Read what I wrote?

Which only adds to the impossibility of the scenario. I really just reject that this impossible hypothetical has any bearing on the real morality of whether or not a mother has the right to kill her unborn child.

No (assuming you mean after birth, not a 1 month fetus). There's no right to kill the infant, there is only a right to bodily autonomy, which results in an infants death.

A person voluntary cedes part of this right if they have sex: men take the risk of STDs, women the risk of STDs and pregnancy from certain forms of sex. But the rape victim never did, and so retains the ability to make the choice to stop carrying the fetus. That's it. She does not have the right to choose that the fetus be killed if it could be saved from a via a risky (to the baby) early birth procedure, just to end the pregnancy.

Killing the unborn child is what takes place with an abortion. If you believe the mother should be allowed to kill the unborn child, for any reason, you are granting her a right to kill the unborn child. If you don't think killing the unborn child takes place, you don't see the unborn child as a human life, so why restrict abortion at all?

 

[Abhorsen]

There is nothing killing the fetus, no cause for the fetus' death apart from whatever action is taken to kill the fetus and remove it from the womb. So no, I reject that what I said applies to the fetus.

You could suggest that aliens could clone Mother Teresa and use a transporter beam to insert her into my body. It's never going to happen, and as a result I don't think it has any real bearing on the question of whether or not a mother has the right to kill her unborn child.

Which only adds to the impossibility of the scenario. I really just reject that this impossible hypothetical has any bearing on the real morality of whether or not a mother has the right to kill her unborn child.

Again, you resort to rejecting an analogy based on implausibility. Not a valid objection. It's like looking at the trolley problem and saying it doesn't happen. The point of an analogy is to get at and expose the underlying morality, not be a realistic depiction of life.

Killing the unborn child is what takes place with an abortion. If you believe the mother should be allowed to kill the unborn child, for any reason, you are granting her a right to kill the unborn child. If you don't think killing the unborn child takes place, you don't see the unborn child as a human life, so why restrict abortion at all?

I am allowing her to kill an unborn child in two limited circumstances, yes (threat to her life, and non-consensual sex). It doesn't grant a right to kill kids generally. What part of this is difficult to understand?

Like, you have a right to kill someone attacking you, you don't have a right to kill people generally. Or is that analogy not realistic enough?

 

[LordsFire]

I am allowing her to kill an unborn child in two limited circumstances, yes (threat to her life, and non-consensual sex). It doesn't grant a right to kill kids generally. What part of this is difficult to understand?

There's a difference between triage, recognizing that you can't save everyone so acting to save those you can, and killing the innocent.

What you are suggesting is the same as if my father raped someone (which he would never do), that woman was then permitted to kill me.

I bear no guilt in this, yet she is being allowed to kill me.

That is the moral equivalence.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Ummm...





Thankfully there are measured takes on Twitter from the Blue Checkmark Brigade.

 

[Stargazer]

Again, you resort to rejecting an analogy based on implausibility. Not a valid objection. It's like looking at the trolley problem and saying it doesn't happen. The point of an analogy is to get at and expose the underlying morality, not be a realistic depiction of life.

If you have to bend over backwards so far your back would realistically break to find an example that's even somewhat comparable, it's not a useful example.

I am allowing her to kill an unborn child in two limited circumstances, yes (threat to her life, and non-consensual sex). It doesn't grant a right to kill kids generally. What part of this is difficult to understand?

Like, you have a right to kill someone attacking you, you don't have a right to kill people generally. Or is that analogy not realistic enough?

The child isn't responsible for the non-consensual sex, so that doesn't stand as a reason for the mother to have the right to kill the unborn child.

What's difficult to understand is what's the problem with the mother killing the one month old infant if it's ok to kill an unborn child six months before birth, etc etc.

 

[Abhorsen]

There's a difference between triage, recognizing that you can't save everyone so acting to save those you can, and killing the innocent.

What you are suggesting is the same as if my father raped someone (which he would never do), that woman was then permitted to kill me.

I bear no guilt in this, yet she is being allowed to kill me.

That is the moral equivalence.

First, it isn't triage, it's self defense. And yes, she would have the right to abort you, just as my mom would have the right to abort me in such a case. Why?

Because all rights flow from self ownership (or the NAP, but they are basically equivalent), including the fetus'. Ultimately, a baby only has a right to reside in the mother's womb because the mother consented to the possibility of the baby being there. If she didn't consent, that baby being there is because of a privilege, not a right. And thus she has no obligation to keep the baby there.

If you have to bend over backwards so far your back would realistically break to find an example that's even somewhat comparable, it's not a useful example.

It's not an example, it's an analogy. I gave you a fairly realistic one, you kept coming up with bad/unrelated objections, including ones that the original analogy already covered, so I then went with a clearly absurd one so you'd stop doing that. Again, the point of an analogy isn't to be realistic, I couldn't give a rats ass about that. The point is to bring the specific moral question to the forefront (if keeping someone alive significantly harms/inconveniences you, can you stop if you never consented to helping in the first place?) while leaving behind unrelated baggage (like that abortion deals with babies, or a rape victim is traumatized).

The child isn't responsible for the non-consensual sex, so that doesn't stand as a reason for the mother to have the right to kill the unborn child.

No, the question is why does the baby have a right to occupy the womb of a non-consenting mother? She's not responsible for the sex either, why should she be forced to help someone?

Again, the question is:
If keeping someone alive significantly harms/inconveniences you, can you stop if you never consented to helping in the first place?

What's difficult to understand is what's the problem with the mother killing the one month old infant if it's ok to kill an unborn child six months before birth, etc etc.

See the top of my statement. The right the mother has is to what is in her body, nothing else. Once it's out of her body, she has no right to it.

 

[Airedale260]

All I have to say is, God bless America.

...

Well, not just that. While I never thought even the squishy Kavanaugh could back down after the draft opinion was leaked and the politicking & threats started flying (even from a pure 'muh SCOTUS legitimiacy' standpoint, appearing to cave in the face of such intimidation would have done vastly more irreparable damage to that legitimacy than holding the line ever could), I've also got to express my surprise that Roberts managed to make this a 6-3 decision.

I think Kavanaugh more likely dug his heels in after the assassination attempt. As for Roberts...basically he was pissed that both sides shifted the goalposts and was like 'fuck all of you' but also conceded that, in such circumstances, and especially when the law in question is absolute shit it should be overturned.

In fact I kind of wonder if he went with the majority also out of spite of whomever leaked the draft...

Wife buys into the leftists narrative on the Roe v Wade so gonna be a fun conversation

I mean, if anything point out to her that it does, in fact, massively strengthen calls for expanded funding of prenatal, neonatal, and pediatric services, plus expansion of child care and assistance, etc, and mental health services and adoption as well.

I, for one, am happy to ramp up spending on this because, yes. It's not just about the pregnancy and birth...they need help after as well.

Wow, just wow. Praise God for a new day for life in the United States of America.

If you had told me 6 years ago that Trump being elected would lead to the overturn of Roe v Wade, I would have laughed. I knew that Hillary being elected and getting to replace Scalia would have been a huge setback for the pro-life movement, and I wanted to avoid that, but I couldn't dream that Trump would actually have the opportunity to appoint enough justices, and get them right, resulting in Roe's overturning.

But in one term, Trump got to replace a solid conservative judge, a swing vote judge (who was key in upholding Roe with Casey), and solid liberal judge. And all those appointments voted to overturn Roe.

And 6-3, wow. It's interesting that Roberts' concurrence expresses pretty much what everyone expected from him, that he didn't really want to overturn Roe and Casey. But he still voted with the majority, and that's just a concurrence, not the actual majority opinion that has legal effect. I wonder just how that went down, since my understanding is that when the chief justice is in the majority they get to decide who writes the majority opinion.

Anyways. Praying for safety for the churches and pregnancy centers that are in danger of being targeted for vandalism and violence in the wake of this.

Look, I think most people on here know I don't like Trump for various reasons.

BUT.

He did, in fact, deliver a full third of the Supreme Court and helped make this possible. That is, he kept his word, especially since it was his stance on the Supreme Court that ultimately swung things his way. So, yes, I am thankful to him for doing that. And for sticking with Kavanaugh and Barrett when the going got tough.

And I may take some heat for this, but don't forget Mitch McConnell basically telling Obama to go fuck himself when Scalia died. Getting Grassley and the rest of the caucus to go along with it (from all across the spectrum) was a hell of a gamble. If he hadn't...ugh. We would have had Merrick Garland, who...hasn't distinguished himself as AG, shall we say. And again, it was the Supreme Court issue that put Trump over the top, too, and that was thanks to McConnell keeping the slot open.

So, yeah. Oh, and let's not forget honorable mentions to Harry Reid (for nuking the filibuster and setting a precedent McConnell warned him he'd regret), and to Chuck Schumer for setting up a filibuster of Gorsuch as opposed to Kavanaugh (which would have been harder for McConnell to nuke given the furor at the time).

Suffice to say the Dems are NOT having a good week, are they…???

Hey, at least gas prices went down a few cents!

This has been the best Pride month ever! Dems got handed 3 major defeats during both Pride and during a Democrat rule of the President, House and Senate. I'm absolutely ecstatic.

Well, it goeth before the fall.

B-But... Minorities are supposed to support Democrats!

Clearly they are focusing on Ruy Teixeira's old work only, when even *he* admitted a while back that the assumption was dramatically wrong. Turns out assimilation into society is, in fact, as strong as it was in the earliest days of the republic.

 

[Stargazer]

It's not an example, it's an analogy. I gave you a fairly realistic one, you kept coming up with bad/unrelated objections, including ones that the original analogy already covered, so I then went with a clearly absurd one so you'd stop doing that. Again, the point of an analogy isn't to be realistic, I couldn't give a rats ass about that. The point is to bring the specific moral question to the forefront (if keeping someone alive significantly harms/inconveniences you, can you stop if you never consented to helping in the first place?) while leaving behind unrelated baggage (like that abortion deals with babies, or a rape victim is traumatized).

That's not how I would frame the moral question, actually. It's more like, "If someone is physically dependent upon you in order to remain alive, and separating them from you would kill them, directly result in their death, do you then have the right to separate from them and in the process by necessity kill them?"

I would say no, because you do not have the right to kill another human being.

No, the question is why does the baby have a right to occupy the womb of a non-consenting mother? She's not responsible for the sex either, why should she be forced to help someone?

The baby isn't making a choice to occupy the womb, it's incapable of making any choice. The only person who has a choice, physically, is the mother. She doesn't have the right to make a choice that would directly kill the unborn child. Because no human has the arbitrary right to kill another human being; that is evil and wrong and should be illegal.

See the top of my statement. The right the mother has is to what is in her body, nothing else. Once it's out of her body, she has no right to it.

So the life of the unborn child doesn't matter. Then why restrict abortion at all? Why does the life of the child not matter here, but suddenly matter if the sex was consensual? It's in her body either way.