Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

[BlendingInfinite]

Just now, DMT Elf said:

Don’t get so defensive. Instead, go do some research from a source that isn’t a right wing reactionary and then we can talk.

Talking about satiric cults and sacrifices is a clear sign that you’ve completely lost the plot.

That’s a fucked up thing to say.

It is as fucked up as to say women should be allowed to abort children.

 

I compare different sources, sometimes the right is right.

[BlendingInfinite]

I think women should only be able to have abortions if they can prove that they were raped and are under 18 or something like that.

But these are all unlikely borderline cases.

[Orb]

@BlendingInfinite

 

Why do you think women should be controlled from being able to choose the right step for the sake of their own betterment?

[Faith]

8 hours ago, Faith said:

8 hours ago, BlendingInfinite said:

However, you knew what I meant anyways, so it was more like unnecessary know-it-all attitude from your side.

 

From the member who likes to say that "others aren't very bright",  maybe just get your facts straight. Just sayin'.. 😄

 

@BlendingInfinite  In the post before this one I had simply corrected  the terminology that alimony doesn't mean child support. I didn't rub it in your face or say anything about you. I just clarified and you said here in this post that because of that I had a "know-it-all attitude".

 

No, I thought maybe you were from another country and were mistaken which word to use. It wasn't a big deal, but you got defensive and insulted me, so I reminded you that it's you that has brought up to me personally in another thread, as well as others that we "aren't so bright", which is downright rude.

 

So, since you like to throw that saying around, maybe you should make sure you don't fall into that category with us "not so bright people". 😂  

 

If I trigger you, then don't respond to me. You are in control of your own post writing, but if I feel like replying to something you write I will definitely do that. 😊

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Indisguise]

As far as I can see, the primary issue is lack of humility -  and instead of it, there are conviction, belief and ignorance. 

 

The problem is not that people disagree on the question of whether abortion should be allowed or not, the real problem is that people haven't even begun to think about, let alone formulate a (even partially) coherent, sophisticated and, most importantly, agreed upon problem.

Just to ask "is abortion good / bad and ought it to be allowed / prohibited?", which is how most people do it in their minds, is a formulation that is way too low in resolution for a question with that much social explosivity.

That's like trying to build a functional aircraft carrier from the drawings of a 10 year old as a construction plan. It's simply too low in resolution to even begin working on it, that way you don't even know where to start. 

 

The other big, and perhaps even the primary issue here is that you can't solve a (or any, for that matter) philosophical problem, especially not one of such immense gravitas, if you don't inspect the assumptions and beliefs that you hold and use to build the question and subsequently construct an answer to that question. In other words, you have to ask, before you proceed with anything:

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

 

What are your assumptions, beliefs, convictions, perspectives about/on:

• individuality
• rights
• religious conviction (--> think of the islamic/judaic aspect of abortion rights)
• what is life
• what is death
• responsibility
• freedom
• gender roles
• ....

Imagine asking a philosopher "is this table real?" Well, if she's worth her salt she'll tell you "you can't just ask me something like that! I don't even know what you mean by 'real'?!"

 

But if you're not a pihilosopher, you don't think like that. You are not aware of these utterly viscious problems in epistemology and metaphysics, instead, you just jump right to the next thing you know, cherish and cling to, which are your assumptions, beliefs and convictions. 

 

Now, obviously, this is a highly philosophical approach that I  present to you here and I'm biased in "favor" of philosphy and inspecting thoughts. We can't expect this from the majority of the population, at least not too much of it. All we can hope for is at least a bit of humility and that people don't immediately jump to ideological conclusions. 

 

The way I see it, a woman should be allowed to have an abortion.

Bodily autonomy and sovereignty is something we grant to all human beings and it musn't be any other way here too (that's not my full argumentation, there are dozens of other points to be considered). The only thing I don't want to conclude is at what point during pregnancy the abortion shouldn't be allowed any longer. I think that if one thinks about having an aborting, one has the responsibility to do it early enough. 

And the last point;  if a woman can abort her pregnancy and "get rid" of her child, a man shouldn't be forced to pay for it. 

[Eothasian]

I think in hard cases it could be allowed. It should not be an easy access thing. If that even were before.

 

I want to add that it is spiritually kind of bad, when it comes to souls forming themselves to have an experience on this earth and then are interupted?

I don't how this works or if that's a thing.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Eothasian

[Links]

On 7/2/2022 at 5:13 PM, Phil said:

• constitutional right to abortion.
• Almost half the states are expected to outlaw or severely restrict abortion

 

I'm not from the USA so the whole legal, political, constitutional and social context isn't too familiar to me. But here in the UK we do have a related issue to the question of where the political decision-making should reside: with the Union or the Nations (States). Where should sovereignty reside? This isn't just about abortion as a moral right-or-wrong, it's also about where that determination is made.  That's a broader issue than just abortion of course, it applies to every political and legal question. 

 

So as I see it, this latest ruling doesn't say whether abortion is right or wrong, it just devolves it to a more local level. In that regard, it would appear to be more democratic, as it better recognises the diversity which exists in the Union. 

 

 If you leave decisions up to the central govt, you're taking the risk that they might go the other way and ban abortion (or other action) across the whole country.  To those who value freedom of choice, why not argue that in fact, this judgement doesn't go far enough. Let's delegate the law down further to county or city level, perhaps with referendums. What's the reason for having it at state level in particular? 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Links

[Faith]

1 hour ago, Links said:

 To those who value freedom of choice, why not argue that in fact, this judgement doesn't go far enough. Let's delegate the law down further to county or city level, perhaps with referendums. What's the reason for having it at state level in particular? 

 Women for the last 50 years have had "federal" protection to a right to privacy, including having an abortion, since it is a medical procedure.

 

Why would they want a state, county or city to have the right to take that privacy away when they had federal protection?

 

Reversing Roe v Wade ended the federal protection that gave women the constitional right to have an abortion.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding your point.

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Links said:

What's the reason for having it at state level in particular? 

I think it more or less just goes back to different ilks migrating here and calming territories in the first place. 

[WhiteOwl]

On 7/3/2022 at 3:43 AM, DMT Elf said:

The concern for life doesn't seem genuine when it only seems to apply to the unborn.

I agree with those who say it has nothing to do with life and everything to do with power and control.

Exactly.. Selling automatic weapons designed to instantly kill masses of people is totally fine, and leaving homeless people on the streets with no help also no problem. Simplified examples but there are endless to choose from.  "Life" is so precious and important right..

 

Some of the prejudice towards Americans just got very much justified again.

 

For people to vote against abortion due to life being sacred better live as god damn angels. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by WhiteOwl

[Links]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:06 AM, Faith said:

 Women for the last 50 years have had "federal" protection to a right to privacy, including having an abortion, since it is a medical procedure.

 

Why would they want a state, county or city to have the right to take that privacy away when they had federal protection?

 

Reversing Roe v Wade ended the federal protection that gave women the constitional right to have an abortion.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Yes it looks like I'm  misunderstanding. When you say privacy, does that mean the doctor-patient confidentiality? So unless the federal govt steps in, the state govt can help itself to your medical records? And the reason why states couldn't stop abortions under Roe vs Wade was because they didn't know who was having them? 

  

I guess this will always be a hotly contested issue, as long as there's a mixture of conservatives and liberals. My point was, if the decision is made by the central govt for the whole country (whichever way it goes), that's a big chunk of the country which feels aggrieved. I expect this ruling isn't the end of the story.  

[Faith]

@Links We have Hipaa laws that "usually" protects medical info, UNLESS the state has an opposing law (which is what the supreme court just handed them the power to do!), then law enforcement officials may be able to use a subpoena to obtain medical records relating to abortions. Maybe there's other ways too I just am not going to look it all up to be honest. The overturn of Roe giving states the power is making it illegal for the clinician to even do an abortion under some or all circumstances. That will be enough for women not to be able to get one in some states. 

 

Btw, I'm not a Democrat or a conservative, because I don't agree with many things on both sides. I add up the current issues and who I think is most capable of resolving them.  If I vote, then I do it that way. I don't belong to a political party. 

 

 

[BlendingInfinite]

On 7/4/2022 at 11:09 PM, Faith said:

 

@BlendingInfinite  In the post before this one I had simply corrected  the terminology that alimony doesn't mean child support. I didn't rub it in your face or say anything about you. I just clarified and you said here in this post that because of that I had a "know-it-all attitude".

 

No, I thought maybe you were from another country and were mistaken which word to use. It wasn't a big deal, but you got defensive and insulted me, so I reminded you that it's you that has brought up to me personally in another thread, as well as others that we "aren't so bright", which is downright rude.

 

So, since you like to throw that saying around, maybe you should make sure you don't fall into that category with us "not so bright people". 😂  

 

If I trigger you, then don't respond to me. You are in control of your own post writing, but if I feel like replying to something you write I will definitely do that. 😊

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't trigger me. It is really just annoying.

 

Maybe triggering in a way you feel if an old lady in a bus doesn't stop talking to you even though you ignore her.

[BlendingInfinite]

Like this feeling of an annoying person who doesn't want to stop and talks bs all day long.

[BlendingInfinite]

@FaithYou can just be humble one time and just say nothing. But I guess you cannot manage it.

 

I asked you before to do that. Multiple times. For me it is hard to discussing stuff with people, who weren't blessed by the god of wisdom or intelligence. It is one weakness of mine. Normally, one just has to stay friendly. But it is easier said than to be done.

Edited July 15, 2022 by BlendingInfinite

[Links]

2 hours ago, Faith said:

We have Hipaa laws that "usually" protects medical info, UNLESS the state has an opposing law (which is what the supreme court just handed them the power to do!), then law enforcement officials may be able to use a subpoena to obtain medical records relating to abortions.

Ah, I think I understand, tho it seems like it might appear a bit of a legal technicality to opponents of abortion in states where it's outlawed. I guess most countries have laws for police to obtain warrants to get protected information for serious investigations. 

 

It's like a power struggle between the state authorities and the federal. Inevitable really when there's different levels of government with opposing views. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Links

[Faith]

@BlendingInfinite

💙

 

[Faith]

@Links Yeah, obviously I'm biased on this that I do believe in freedom of choice. Anyways, thanks for the discussion! 

 

Today in the news I heard a sad story about a 10 year old girl from my home state that was raped. Police have made an arrest in the case. Apparently she was too far along to get an abortion in Ohio and had to travel to Indiana to get one, because there was no age or rape clauses in the Ohio law.  

 

[Phil]

What if making abortion illegal actually results in more fetal deaths. 

[Blessed2]

I think this is simply one of those culture war things distracting from the 'real' issues.

 

How I see it, it's mostly coming from the right. It's basically creating polarization and debate by focusing on something that is not really practically that important or urgent. Abortion is more like an ethical/moral hot potato. The right paints a picture of  innocent babies murdered in masses by "the other group (left)". And then focuses debate and polarization on this only seemingly important and urgent issue. And the real, important and urgent issues that touch millions of current and future born & alive people are lost. Enviromental damage, corruption and lobbying, violence, drugs etc.

 

Don't get me wrong, abortion is a hard ethical/moral question and should be taken into account. But what I've gathered from following the US politics, the political discourse around it is really just quite nonsensical culture war/polarization stuff. It's more like a conservative / liberal identity issue. Run by propaganda.

 

Making abortion illegal means a ton of babies born. If you believe these unborn humans have a right to be born, and they deserve the good life, I'd say begin by making sure this world and enviroment they are born into is a good, healthy, loving place. A society where mass shootings are getting more and more common, where earning a living might take two jobs, where millions are becoming drug addicts and homeless, where even as basic things as education or healthcare are not free and require huge loans... Is this really the place you think these unborn people deserve?