ForumTouchy Subjects ► Supreme Court Overturning Abortion Rights
I was on the fence about compelling someone to nurse, but compelling someone to do something is harder to justify than compelling someone not to do something. It's easier to justify intervening to prevent someone from killing their child than it is to justify forcing someone to nurse their child, for the same reason I have no qualms about outlawing abortion but do have qualms about mandating organ donation.
In the case of abortion, outlawing it is compelling one to go through with pregnancy. One way or another, in this instance there’s no getting around it. The idea that compelling someone to do or not do something is somehow more or less justified without any specifics on what it is that one is being compelled to or not to do, is a questionable way of conducting yourself ethically.
Mandatory organ donation makes for a decent example of compelling one to do that which would save another’s life, much how you must view compelling a woman to go through with pregnancy.
I've only advocated for democratic government, so I don't understand this characterization or what alternative you're proposing. Yes, laws should be founded on ethics, but they can't be written through ethics, only (in the best case) via the democratic process, which is itself necessarily agnostic to ethics.
The duly appointed authorities have moral justification for enforcing laws by force; I as an individual do not. This isn't at all controversial or unusual.

It’s quotes like the one above in response to a moral hypothetical about desert islands with no government that make me think you might have a view of government authority on abortion does seem like it’s always consistent with your own moral compass. The ethical principles guiding your politics should also guide you when there is no government should you find yourself in a position with the power to feasibly act on them. Democratic government is not necessarily less authoritarian. A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master every few years.
Because there clearly isn't room for common ground here on the ethical issue - at least not for anyone who's thought about this as much as we have. Our moral frameworks are apparently not compatible on this point.

I’ve already made a point that the democratic approach isn’t fair. You haven’t addressed that it’s somewhat convenient for you that the general state legislature is postured and able to support your position more than they ever have been before in recent history, and they are not as neutral in the decision-making process as they should be. Many justices on the supreme court supported for Roe v. Wade and now they’re against it. The supreme court itself has become a partisan weapon; and although I think handing the vote down to states isn’t the worst thing, even pro-life republicans in office like Scott Lloyd, who blocked a 17 year old girl who was raped from having an abortion, got an ex-girlfriend to get an abortion and paid for half. Tim Murphy urged his mistress to get an abortion. Scott DesJarlais supported his ex-wife’s decision to get two abortions. These are members of the political party that hold most of the political power in states with more blue voters. It’s a disproportionate unjust system in most places here in the states and we’re talking about an issue where there is little consensus. Given the split, the decision to even criminalize abortions will likely go to the red side in states with a blue majority population.
Our moral frameworks can be adjusted, if necessary, where we find inconsistencies and other problems. That’s part of the reason I like to discuss my thoughts. You and I agree that the legal ambiguity on personhood and whether bodily autonomy is a right doesn’t help the situation, so I don’t think voting will be optimal for a vast amount of the population until people like you and I can find common ground on the same issues.
Simply coping out and saying we have different moral frameworks looks to me like you don’t want to compare our moral framework regarding things when a person is a person or bodily autonomy, or the value of potential life. I would like to compare and explore both the moral validity and legal practicality of using self-awareness as the deciding factor of when a person is a person vs. my idea of human sentience and the idea that potential people’s rights mater vs the alternative.
I'm extremely suspicious of such indirect applications of utilitarianism. It's the same reason I disagree with the argument that we should promote abortion for the sake of the quality of life of mothers and their other children. I don't think humans have a good track record with sacrificing one groups' rights for the "greater good". That's nonetheless a very interesting point on the climatological impact of more children vs. more ecologically-minded children.
The groups right in question would be the unborn, and only the unborn in early pregnancy. Sacrificing that group’s rights for the greater good has already been happening and it doesn’t seem like society is worse for it. How applicable is humanity’s track record with sacrificing rights or “groups” compared to sacrificing early pregnancy fetal rights in favor of the right to bodily autonomy?
Doesn’t seem like a relevant comparison since whenever the rights of one group are dependent upon the other group being forced to do something it’s usually unjust.

Also, I still want to know what you think about this since we hadn’t reached a consensus on whether a rape victim should be forced to continue with the pregnancy:
E7 said:
Which reminds me, I hate to go back to the violinist argument, I think it's still relevant when the woman has not consented to sexual activity, whereas earlier we hadn't quite reached a consensus on whether a woman should be forced to go through with pregnancy resulting from rape.

To take the violinist argument a step further, I’d also like to consider that unintended pregnancy doesn’t seem like consent to be pregnant. In that way, I still think the violinist argument applies. We don’t grant the right to use another’s body for survival to other people and I don’t think having sex while being aware of the risks and having an unintended pregnancy is the same as consenting to be going through with a pregnancy.
Back to the potential ramifications of outlawing abortion, abortion will still happen, and it will be less safe, so there isn’t much practical reason to outlaw it. Outlawing something like abortion on principle alone doesn’t seem like a good idea in much the same way hanging judges and revolt may be justified under certain circumstances, but also, not a good idea.
  
There was no legal precedent or basis for the trimester or viability frameworks established in Roe and Casey, and the Supreme Court is not a legislative body, which means from a legal standpoint they can and should be disregarded.
I don't really buy this. Viability is clearly a condition that affects the actions that a pregnant person can take. Trimester is a little fuzzier, but in context seems to be a stand-in for viability. Whether or not the legislature has considered this factor seems irrelevant.
  
E7 said:
Mandatory organ donation makes for a decent example of compelling one to do that which would save another’s life, much how you must view compelling a woman to go through with pregnancy.
Intervention vs. non-intervention, action vs. inaction - not morally the same. (Being terse here because we've already been over this.)
E7 said:
The ethical principles guiding your politics should also guide you when there is no government
That doesn't follow.
E7 said:
I’ve already made a point that the democratic approach isn’t fair.
What's your alternative? Please be specific.
E7 said:
You haven’t addressed that it’s somewhat convenient for you that the general state legislature is postured and able to support your position more than they ever have been before in recent history
I'm not any happier about that than you are. The first thing I would do if I could amend the Constitution by fiat would be to mandate representation in Congress proportional to population (and replace first past the post with ranked choice voting). There are some personal policy preferences of mine which the current system advances and others that it hinders. The current flaws in the US legislature are simply not relevant to the conversation.
E7 said:
Many justices on the supreme court supported for Roe v. Wade and now they’re against it.
Who?
E7 said:
The supreme court itself has become a partisan weapon
All the more reason not to condone it acting as a superlegislature.
E7 said:
You and I agree that the legal ambiguity on personhood and whether bodily autonomy is a right doesn’t help the situation, so I don’t think voting will be optimal for a vast amount of the population until people like you and I can find common ground on the same issues.
There's a lack of consensus, therefore the pro-choice side wins by default, regardless of what people vote for? (???)
E7 said:
Simply coping out and saying we have different moral frameworks looks to me like you don’t want to compare our moral framework regarding things when a person is a person or bodily autonomy, or the value of potential life.
I'm more than happy to do that, and I have done it, repeatedly, for ~14 years.
E7 said:
Sacrificing that group’s rights for the greater good has already been happening and it doesn’t seem like society is worse for it.
That depends on what you consider "society". If the unborn are considered part of society, then unfettered abortion has killed millions of its members, which is arguably not a very stellar outcome. Similarly, if we consider antebellum Southern society to consist of white landowners, then it doesn't seem society was any worse for the practice of slavery either.
E7 said:
Also, I still want to know what you think about this since we hadn’t reached a consensus on whether a rape victim should be forced to continue with the pregnancy
I've already stated my opinion on this: I would prefer not to make an exception for abortion in cases of rape, but I'd be willing to compromise since they're extremely uncommon anyway.
E7 said:
To take the violinist argument a step further, I’d also like to consider that unintended pregnancy doesn’t seem like consent to be pregnant.
Consensual sex implies consent to the risk of pregnancy (assuming the person having sex understands the relationship between sex and pregnancy).
E7 said:
We don’t grant the right to use another’s body for survival to other people
There are no other commonplace situations where that condition arises, so I'm not sure how you can say that. But regarding the violinist argument, I assert that if one were to engage in behavior knowing that there's a risk that it could result in a violinist entering into a state of physical dependence on one's body, the person engaging in that behavior takes on the resulting moral responsibility to the violinist. For the rape version of the analogy, see above.
E7 said:
Back to the potential ramifications of outlawing abortion, abortion will still happen, and it will be less safe, so there isn’t much practical reason to outlaw it.
Are you claiming that no fewer abortions will be performed if it's illegal?
Fwip said:
I don't really buy this. Viability is clearly a condition that affects the actions that a pregnant person can take. Trimester is a little fuzzier, but in context seems to be a stand-in for viability. Whether or not the legislature has considered this factor seems irrelevant.
Congress is free to legislate on abortion on the basis of viability or trimester - they can write whatever laws the Constitution permits that they think will get them re-elected (hopefully because those laws reflect the values and interests of their constituents). But that's not the role of the Supreme Court. They aren't supposed to manufacture legal frameworks out of thin air, yet that's exactly what they did in Roe.
From Alito's opinion:
When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on the country, it asserted that its rules were “consistent with” the following: (1) “the relative weights of the respective interests involved,” (2) “the lessons and examples of medical and legal history,” (3) the lenity of the common law,” and (4) “the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” Id, at 165. Put aside the second and third factors, which were based on the Court's flawed account of history, and what remains are precisely the sort of considerations that legislative bodies often take into account when they draw lines that accommodate competing interests. The scheme Roe produced looked like legislation, and the Court provided the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body.
  
Intervention vs. non-intervention, action vs. inaction - not morally the same. (Being terse here because we've already been over this.)
A virus will overtake someone without medical intervention. What’s the moral significance of not intervening? I don’t recall you explaining why, because that sounds like something I’d disagree with.
E7 said:
The ethical principles guiding your politics should also guide you when there is no government
That doesn't follow.
If they’re your ethical principles why wouldn’t it follow that they apply both to you and your political activity? Are you suggesting that the ethical principles guiding your politics shouldn’t guide your actions? That just sounds unscrupulous.
E7 said:
I’ve already made a point that the democratic approach isn’t fair.
What's your alternative? Please be specific.
In context, I’m saying we’re already both aware of the political reality and actions we both can take within the system, but that’s irrelevant to reconciling our differences via argument unless you’ve no interest in arguing at all. In which case, vote away and why bother arguing?
E7 said:
I'm not any happier about that than you are. The first thing I would do if I could amend the Constitution by fiat would be to mandate representation in Congress proportional to population (and replace first past the post with ranked choice voting). There are some personal policy preferences of mine which the current system advances and others that it hinders. The current flaws in the US legislature are simply not relevant to the conversation.
The current flaws are relevant to you bringing up voting as a substitute for argument or consensus, besides regarding the points you arbitrarily you won’t argue. Voting isn’t a substitute for consensus or moral justification, it merely establishes something, but it tends to be unstable or impermanent if there isn’t a real consensus backing, which doesn’t seem to concern as it should. The current decision to overturn Roe v. Wade could change with the political winds just as it is now if there aren’t grounds for consensus among Americans such as us.
E7 said:
Many justices on the supreme court supported for Roe v. Wade and now they’re against it.
Who?
Since there hasn’t been a major enough change in the supreme court to have a majority vote on the draft without there being some who’ve reversed their position; besides what I’m saying is that the supreme court has become a partisan weapon and has not been neutral, which you already agreed, so why do want me to tell you who? You’ll have to wait for that information like the rest of us, since I don’t think there’s enough on the leaked draft to exactly who supports it now.
All the more reason not to condone it acting as a superlegislature.
I agree, and I think the case Roe v. Wade and others like it make for a poor defense of rights on their own. There should be something more concrete in place regarding these issues, but we discussed that, agreed, and it’s besides the conversation we’re currently having.
There's a lack of consensus, therefore the pro-choice side wins by default, regardless of what people vote for? (???)
No, the point is that regardless of which side wins in politics on this issue, there won’t be a lasting victory until a resolution is reached that involves a greater consensus; and there won’t be more concrete defenses in place besides the supreme court decisions acting as a “superlegislature” until enough of a consensus is reached to push government to create better protections and laws around personhood and bodily autonomy.
E7 said:
Simply coping out and saying we have different moral frameworks looks to me like you don’t want to compare our moral framework regarding things when a person is a person or bodily autonomy, or the value of potential life.
I'm more than happy to do that, and I have done it, repeatedly, for ~14 years.
That’s cool, cause then no reasonable person will have any reason to consider anything you’re unwilling to back up and it seems like thinly veiled insecurity regarding your inner thoughts; not something I’d brag about. Stonewalling rarely proves effective, because most don’t really accept it as a substitute for argument. Sadly, there will be no legal consensus on personhood if people like you just refuse to engage in discussion on issues like these.
I've already stated my opinion on this: I would prefer not to make an exception for abortion in cases of rape, but I'd be willing to compromise since they're extremely uncommon anyway.
Your willingness to compromise still leaves me hanging regarding a moral defense for it; I might’ve missed that part. I heard you talk about it earlier, but not in relation to the violinist argument.
Consensual sex implies consent to the risk of pregnancy (assuming the person having sex understands the relationship between sex and pregnancy).
I assert that if one were to engage in behavior knowing that there's a risk that it could result in a violinist entering into a state of physical dependence on one's body, the person engaging in that behavior takes on the resulting moral responsibility to the violinist.
I don’t think the implied risk of pregnancy is strong enough to be considered legally binding. I’d say it’s immoral to use abortion as a backup contraceptive, but that principle alone I don’t think is worth the harms caused by forcing women to continue with pregnancy. Morally one might have taken some responsibility for the violinist here, but that seems like a bad situation to legally enforce; just because someone took a risk, doesn’t seem to me that they are entirely responsible for any life that requires use of their body.
Are you claiming that no fewer abortions will be performed if it's illegal?
No, but having illegal abortions occur while having fewer abortions overall doesn’t sound like a great situation. On the whole, that sounds awful.
  
E7 said:
What’s the moral significance of not intervening?
Prohibiting an intervention that unnaturally destroys a life is not morally equivalent to mandating an intervention that unnaturally preserves a life. I'm not guilty of a crime if I don't roam the streets looking for people who've had a heart attack so I can help them to the hospital. But if I roam the streets looking for people to shoot in the heart, I'm a murderer.
E7 said:
If they’re your ethical principles why wouldn’t it follow that they apply both to you and your political activity?
Society collectively can possess authority that an individual can't. Voting for a policy is very different from taking unilateral action to enact that policy. At risk of repeating myself, I can vote for police to be allowed to apprehend and detain suspects of crime without being justified to personally do the same.
E7 said:
Voting isn’t a substitute for consensus or moral justification, it merely establishes something, but it tends to be unstable or impermanent if there isn’t a real consensus backing, which doesn’t seem to concern as it should.
There is much stronger moral consensus on abortion at state/local levels than at the federal level. In the current political climate, I strongly believe that leaving this to the states is a more stable legal situation.
E7 said:
The current decision to overturn Roe v. Wade could change with the political winds just as it is now if there aren’t grounds for consensus among Americans such as us.
Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were brazenly politically motivated and free of legal merit; the current decision may very well be partially politically motivated too, but it also happens to be the correct legal outcome. If this reversal (assuming it goes through) is itself later reversed, it won't be just because the political winds have changed again but because the SCOTUS again overstepped its legal authority.
E7 said:
Since there hasn’t been a major enough change in the supreme court to have a majority vote on the draft without there being some who’ve reversed their position
Who on the current Court reversed their decision? None of the current justices were on the Supreme Court at the time of Roe v. Wade. I believe only Clarence Thomas was around for Casey.
E7 said:
No, the point is that regardless of which side wins in politics on this issue, there won’t be a lasting victory until a resolution is reached that involves a greater consensus
Or we could declare it a stalemate at the national level and let it be a state/local issue.
E7 said:
and there won’t be more concrete defenses in place besides the supreme court decisions acting as a “superlegislature” until enough of a consensus is reached to push government to create better protections and laws around personhood and bodily autonomy.
I would oppose the SCOTUS reading into the Constitution an uncompromising fetal right to life that's not there, just as I oppose its reading a right to abortion that's not there.
E7 said:
Stonewalling rarely proves effective, because most don’t really accept it as a substitute for argument.
I'm not trying to stonewall - frankly I'm just growing tired of repeating the same arguments that we've already hashed out in this thread. Unless you're adding something new to the argument, it's a waste of everyone's time.
E7 said:
Your willingness to compromise still leaves me hanging regarding a moral defense for it; I might’ve missed that part.
IMO there is no moral defense. Political compromise sometimes entails moral compromise as well. I'd rather not let the perfect be the enemy of >98% perfect.

However, there are people on the pro-life side who view rape cases as morally different with regard to abortion because they consider the mother's willing role in creating the fetus in the first place to impose a moral obligation, that wouldn't otherwise exist, to protect that fetus. I think that's true, but I disagree with the conclusion that rape is therefore a moral exception for abortion because I still don't think a rape victim's lack of responsibility justifies killing the child.
E7 said:
just because someone took a risk, doesn’t seem to me that they are entirely responsible for any life that requires use of their body.
At least with regard to abortion, I don't consider the temporary, partial use of a human being's body to impose greater harm than the permanent, complete destruction of a another human being's body.

Humans are expected to sacrifice bodily autonomy in small ways all the time. A parent crossing the street with their child is expected to give up the use of a hand for a few seconds to guide the child across. If I'm on a crowded train, I'm not legally allowed to swing my fists wildly. These are microscopic but very real limitations on bodily autonomy. (I could cite the draft as an example of even greater imposition of the state on bodily autonomy than an abortion ban is, but the draft is maybe just as controversial.)
E7 said:
No, but having illegal abortions occur while having fewer abortions overall doesn’t sound like a great situation. On the whole, that sounds awful.
I think it's a question of hard numbers. If banning abortion would save one fetus while the remaining N-1 abortion-seekers would get an abortion anyway but suffer sterilization or death, I don't think that would be good policy. But I think the number of abortions prevented will be much higher, and I think the number of unsafe abortions performed (and resulting complications) will also be much lower.
  
Society collectively can possess authority that an individual can't. Voting for a policy is very different from taking unilateral action to enact that policy. At risk of repeating myself, I can vote for police to be allowed to apprehend and detain suspects of crime without being justified to personally do the same.
But in this instance we’re talking about the abstract morality of not intervening vs. intervening; in this case you’ve indicated that it’s somehow more moral to legally enforce unwanted pregnancies rather than allow abortion. The matter at hand is whether criminalizing abortion is morally justified; and if it isn’t, you’d be wrong to vote for that and authorities would not be morally justified to uphold such a law on the principle of democracy alone.
You could use legal authority to justify mandatory organ donation by the same token where you make exceptions for those who are qualified to enforce mandatory organ donations safely.
There is much stronger moral consensus on abortion at state/local levels than at the federal level. In the current political climate, I strongly believe that leaving this to the states is a more stable legal situation.
That’s a bold statement to me, because I see some states that wish to outlaw abortion actually contain a majority that wish it to be legal, but they lack proportional representation. Given that is the case, it doesn’t seem politically fair or justified by democratic standards, but as I’ve said, since there is no better practical alternative for the time being, leaving it to the states may be the only option, but it is not ideal. And it likely won’t be stable assuming that a liberal majority in higher legislative parts of government could easily swing this back again in another 30-40 years; possibly less.
Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were brazenly politically motivated and free of legal merit; the current decision may very well be partially politically motivated too, but it also happens to be the correct legal outcome. If this reversal (assuming it goes through) is itself later reversed, it won't be just because the political winds have changed again but because the SCOTUS again overstepped its legal authority.
”brazenly politically motivated and free of legal merit” seems more like an opinion (just as the leaked draft is just opinion), not compelling to me, but it could just so happen that another case comes before a more liberal supreme court in the future, and that case will create new legal precedent due to “court packing” like we currently have. Honestly though, I do see some problems with Roe v. Wade, but it’s not all the same problems that you might have.
Who on the current Court reversed their decision? None of the current justices were on the Supreme Court at the time of Roe v. Wade. I believe only Clarence Thomas was around for Casey.
Senator Susan Collin’s commented saying “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. Obviously, we won’t know each Justice’s decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court announces its opinion in this case.” By the principles of stare decisis, several Supreme Court Justices swore the precedent was settled, so they would be lying if the leaked draft is accurate. No need to have been sitting on the Supreme Court back in the 70s.

I'm not trying to stonewall - frankly I'm just growing tired of repeating the same arguments that we've already hashed out in this thread. Unless you're adding something new to the argument, it's a waste of everyone's time.
At this point, a few weeks have passed with a few days between responses, it’s not unreasonable to expect certain points will need to be “rehashed”, but if you mean to imply that we reached a conclusion, that is not the case and some points I made following yours are still awaiting your response; I’ll grab them for ya.


UNRESOLVED POINTS:
E7 said:
I would like to compare and explore both the moral validity and legal practicality of using self-awareness as the deciding factor of when a person is a person vs. my idea of human sentience and the idea that potential people’s rights mater vs the alternative.
That is to say that we’ve only both established that these are our opinions, BUT I haven’t heard a compelling reason why self-awareness should be the deciding factor in determining when a person is a person. If I recall you said because it’s the most uniquely human thing about us, but I don’t necessarily agree, because I think it is not consequentially significant to the concept of Human Rights. The most important distinction we can make in terms of human rights, is that one is in fact human, and there is not value to life that isn’t sentient whereas there is value to life, self-aware or not. It’s arbitrarily anthropocentric to grant human rights more value than animal rights, but I don’t think I have the same moral responsibility to sentient animal life as I do to sentient human life. Therefore, I see a human fetus’ right to live only as being worthy of state protection when there is sentience.
Then, there is the issue of whether potential life should be weighted equally to current lives, and we still disagree and I haven’t yet had a response to the following:
E7 said:
I think that a fetus has a moral right to live, but that a fetus is not a person, so its right to live is not morally more valuable than a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I believe the rights of a person are more valuable than living things that I do not consider people. Even though a fetus has the potential to become a person, and that is of value, I still don't consider it greater than a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Here I concede that potential lives and potential rights do matter to a limited extent, but I don’t potential rights matter for that which is not yet a person. Being robbed of the potential to be a person is not the same as murdering a person. Your analogies you used to argue that potential rights matter involved people who are not “potential people”, and potential rights do matter when we’re talking about people, but I don’t see why they should for potential people; not only that, I also argued that rights used in your analogies such as reproductive rights don’t exclude those incapable of reproducing, because rights aren’t based on what one has the physical capability to do; the only real limits on what one’s rights should be from my understanding is that which impedes upon another’s rights.
Neither of my arguments regarding personhood and potential rights received a response to which I’m left to conclude that your unwillingness to address these points that you’ve expressed is stonewalling.
E7 said:
Your willingness to compromise still leaves me hanging regarding a moral defense for it; I might’ve missed that part.
IMO there is no moral defense. Political compromise sometimes entails moral compromise as well. I'd rather not let the perfect be the enemy of >98% perfect.
By that same token I’d imagine that if you discovered the outcome of outlawing abortion to be worse than the alternative, then you’d have no reason to support anti-abortion laws, even if it meant “the complete destruction of a [potential.] human body”, which I don’t think you consider the destruction of an early term fetus to be of equal value to that of say, a human baby.
Humans are expected to sacrifice bodily autonomy in small ways all the time. A parent crossing the street with their child is expected to give up the use of a hand for a few seconds to guide the child across. If I'm on a crowded train, I'm not legally allowed to swing my fists wildly. These are microscopic but very real limitations on bodily autonomy. (I could cite the draft as an example of even greater imposition of the state on bodily autonomy than an abortion ban is, but the draft is maybe just as controversial.)
The analogy is pointless again, because I’m aware of the limitations on bodily autonomy, and in short (without needing any crude analogy) what I think you’re saying is that bodily autonomy is limited to whatever doesn’t violate the law or another person’s rights and property, and I’d agree. The crux of the problem here is our unresolved difference of opinion on what rights an early term fetus has and of what value those rights are compared to the woman in question.
Still your only expressed issue before this point with the violinist argument was that those consensually having sex being aware of the risks now have a moral obligation to any life that results from the risk of pregnancy. In the case of rape, there is no consent, so you’d be granting the fetus resulting from the rape the right to live over that of a woman’s bodily autonomy which seems inconsistent with your expressed views on organ donation.
Also, speaking of arguments we haven’t resolved; I still say that the violinist argument applies to elective abortions because temporary use of one’s body shouldn’t be granted to the fetus just because the woman had casual sex or immorally treats abortion as a contraceptive, which means that the woman should have the authority to eliminate the fetus. We haven’t yet reached a consensus on whether having sex implies a legal responsibility to carry the fetus to term. I don’t think it does, particularly when contraceptives are involved, because the risks are the exception not the rule. If I participate in a legal activity that is risky, I’m generally obligated to pay for damages that result from negligence, but when there is no negligence involved, it’s not legally my fault, and things do occur quite often that incur damages with no fault. Now, in the case of a woman who is pregnant when having sexual relations with say her husband.
  
Or we could declare it a stalemate at the national level and let it be a state/local issue.


Hey, hey, why stop there? What's so great about the state? Let's leave it to the cities, the counties, or hey, this is nuts, what about the individual? The country's far too divided even at a state level. The only reason to put it there is to enforce the slight-majority's opinion over the barely-minority. Preventing government intervention is the only way to avoid trampling on the rights of the individual. If it's a stalemate nationally, it gets no less stale locally.
  
Well it's no longer theoretical. I hope y'all are fucking pleased by the outcome and all the people who are going to die, suffer traumatizing medical complications or other experiences related to pregnancy, and have their liberty to decide when and how to have children stripped from them.
  
Man. What happens now?
  
People will die, people will suffer permanent medical consequences, people will be traumatized, and there will be many more unwanted children or children whose parents do not have resources to care for them, mostly.

Gender equality will also decrease as forced pregnancy changes the way people can interact within the workforce. Sexism and queerphobic bigotry will rise in states that outlaw abortion.
  
Guys, I know the news might be distressing but the solution is right there for us.

If someone has an unwanted pregnancy, we turn them to the side and use a small caliber rifle to shoot the part of the belly which sticks out with the baby.

Guns, being a sacred constitutional right protected by the supreme court, cannot be restricted in any way so as long as we file this under gun violence, no one will do anything and the abortion will be performed.

Just make sure to have gauze at the ready and to avoid vital organs.
  
Yes ban abortion but we can't ban guns because banning doesn't do anything and people will get them anyway.

side note: that's how I used to think abortions were done when I was a wee child
  
Ah the virtues of growing up in a Christian home, where I was told an abortion was ritualistically dismembering and sacrificing a fully grown baby to satan
  
Seriously?
  
Man. What happens now?

Bad things. Only bad things can happen now.
Ah the virtues of growing up in a Christian home, where I was told an abortion was ritualistically dismembering and sacrificing a fully grown baby to satan

Somebody has quite the imagination
  
This was the expected result. I think this is also the result of slactivism since Roe v. Wade was never a strong foundation for abortion rights, but no progress continued where it concerns abortion rights since that victory.

The only opposition to my position in favor of abortion rights in this thread has disappeared for the time being, but one point I was making was the result of the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is going to create a myriad of issues down the road and will be worse for society. On that, we probably won't have to wait too long before the news is spoiled for choice as to the awful stories we'll see come out following this decision; as well as increased polarization of the public caused by people voluntarily segregating from each other based on the legal situation in each state.

I'm morbidly excited by the prospect of people becoming politically active to oppose this decision; perhaps so active that it creates the civil unrest needed to counteract it in a potentially productive way, but we shall see. I'll add that turning things over to the states isn't the worst thing for everyone. We know there are a number of states with protections, and I think that following this decision, in the near future we might see a number of states change legislation due to pushback when they have a blue majority.
  
@Hydrogen777:

How do you feel about the idea of this setting the stage for “reconsideration” of Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges? Are you pleased with that?
  
Ah the virtues of growing up in a Christian home, where I was told an abortion was ritualistically dismembering and sacrificing a fully grown baby to satan
Assuming this is true, it's unusual. Just as most abortionists don't sacrifice to Satan, most Christians don't teach that.
eriophora said:
Well it's no longer theoretical. I hope y'all are fucking pleased by the outcome and all the people who are going to die, suffer traumatizing medical complications or other experiences related to pregnancy, and have their liberty to decide when and how to have children stripped from them.
The vast majority of this thread have been against this decision, who are you talking to?
  
man
  
He has a point. I remember back about 10 years ago being on the opposite end of about every single forum user on the forum at the time; such as when I argued for public breastfeeding. It's kind of tedious and beleaguering to have to respond to all that, and then some people respond as if there's a silent army lurking in the bushes that have been wanting the opposite of what you want. It's a bit gratuitous and alarmist the way a lot of these topics are treated and responded to, especially when most people are in agreement already.
  
Maybe because hydrogen posted so much.
  
Millpond said:
Ah the virtues of growing up in a Christian home, where I was told an abortion was ritualistically dismembering and sacrificing a fully grown baby to satan
Assuming this is true, it's unusual. Just as most abortionists don't sacrifice to Satan, most Christians don't teach that.
eriophora said:
Well it's no longer theoretical. I hope y'all are fucking pleased by the outcome and all the people who are going to die, suffer traumatizing medical complications or other experiences related to pregnancy, and have their liberty to decide when and how to have children stripped from them.
The vast majority of this thread have been against this decision, who are you talking to?

Prob you and Jon.
  
I didn't support this.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Supreme Court Overturning Abortion Rights