JUST IN | US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion

[tetrasect]

You're right.

Is it okay to murder someone when they are sleeping? Even though presumably they wont wake up to find out that they are dead?

The analogy still fails. They would have to never have been awake or "alive" in the first place for this to work.

Following that logic is why some people think male masturbation is a sin.

 

[TelkomUseless]

Why 18? How old do you have to be to operate some razor blades.

So suicide is good ? Way more effort and admin work then in the womb termination...

 

[TelkomUseless]

Do you?

You quote matrix And I ask you.. but you don't answer. And you ask me my question ... so whats your answer?

 

[Nerfherder]

So now you are arguing for abortion up to birth. Late term abortion, right?

Stop worrying about late term abortions. Its a very simple thing to fix, just give woman access to early options and its mostly not a problem.

The biggest failure with the revocation of Roe v Wade is that many will now only have late term options.

 

[Nerfherder]

No, I am saying his logic is full of gaping holes.

EDIT: looking at that again.... different issue but yes. The woman's rights end where the babies rights begin.

Babies rights begin when they are born.
Consider also that a baby can kill a woman in child birth. You can't separate the two things.

This is a great example of the societal decline we do not want. Thanks.

What social decline ? right now is the best time to have lived.

When was it better ?

And the reason you can't answer the question is because you don't really value human life. Because if you did then you would be more worried about the actual people around you.

 

[agentrfr]

The analogy still fails. They would have to never have been awake or "alive" in the first place for this to work.

I dont believe the analogy fails at all.

One cannot steal from someone whether they are aware of the theft or not.
One may also not murder someone whether they are aware of it or not.
One may not murder someone, then then justify stealing from them since they cannot be cognisant of the theft as they are dead.

The temporal status of an individual's congisance of their patrimony has no bearing on their right to maintain it.

An unborn child - in the absence of direct measures to terminate him/her - will eventually come to cognisize their existence.

If it is not okay to steal from someone, or kill someone even if they are not aware of it, how can it be justified to kill a baby because you assume they are not able to cognisize it yet.

Can you validate the assumption that the brain signals in the fetus' spinal column and brain are not capable of interpreting pain?

Following that logic is why some people think male masturbation is a sin.

As Jonny Depp's lawyer would say, that is an impressive leap of hearsay

 

[konfab]

Stop worrying about late term abortions. Its a very simple thing to fix, just give woman access to early options and its mostly not a problem.

The biggest failure with the revocation of Roe v Wade is that many will now only have late term options.

It is very simple, no abortions after 8 weeks unless there is a severe foetal anomaly, or there is a medical reason like an ectopic pregnancy.

Hormonal birth control is devastatingly effective. It costs what, $60 dollars for 3 months of protection? $20 dollars a month for highly effective birth control in a country is really cheap if you consider what it does. And if someone can't afford that, they can either find it from charity, or just not have sex.

 

[Arthur]

and decides this for other people.

All the libertarians disappear when this topic comes up. Now its ok to tell people what to do with their bodies.

Nope. Not telling people what to do with their bodies. It's telling them what not to do with their bodies, viz no-one may use their body to aggress against another innocent human.

This imperative (ie legal order/instruction) axiomatically arises from the fundamental social and civilisational rule that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defence to repel the aggression of another, and then only against the aggressor.

Society establishes institutions such as government to give effect to this fundamental rule. That is why society (via its police and courts) will punish you if you use your body to intentionally assault or kill another, or take someone else's property without their permission. It's telling you what you may not do with your body.

The whole of society is vitally interested in protecting the life and property of each individual in that society. Without exception. Or should be.

In its legal institutions it does so primarily by prohibiting aggression.

Without this rule social living quickly breaks down and civilisation crumbles.

The prohibition is all-encompassing, includes all humans, and admits no exceptions -- It matters not whether the victim aggressed against is awake or sleeping, conscious or unconscious, old or young, dependent or independent, intelligent or stupid, large or small, black or white, citizen or alien, sick or healthy, handicapped or abled, willing or unwilling. Etc.

Babies in the womb are human babies. They are entitled to the same protections as any other human.

Yes, they might not legally be persons in the way the law uses that term for matters like inheritance, contract, liability, and so on. But they are emphatically human in every other respect. Like all other humans of whatever status or condition, they may not be intentionally or negligently killed.

Abortion is an horrific and unconscionable assault on a fellow human being.

Allowing it legally corrupts our legal system at its core because it makes an exception to the fundamental principle against aggression. Once society allows exceptions to the law against aggression, everything else is fair game. It's the line that cannot be crossed without bringing disaster on everyone.

Now we cannot completely abolish human iniquity. Murders, assaults, thefts and other aggressions will always be a sad reality. But under no circumstances can or should they become legally permissible.

 

[konfab]

and decides this for other people.

All the libertarians disappear when this topic comes up. Now its ok to tell people what to do with their bodies.

It isn't what a woman does to her body that is the issue. It is what she does to someone else's.

 

[agentrfr]

It isn't what a woman does to her body that is the issue. It is what she does to someone else's.

Yes, they might not legally be persons in the way the law uses that term for matters like inheritance, contract, liability, and so on. But they are emphatically human in every other respect. Like all other humans of whatever status or condition, they may not be intentionally or negligently killed.

Indeed.

 

[konfab]

Nope. Not telling people what to do with their bodies. It's telling them what not to do with their bodies, viz no-one may use their body to aggress against another innocent human.

This imperative (ie legal order/instruction) axiomatically arises from the fundamental social and civilisational rule that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defence to repel the aggression of another, and then only against the aggressor.

Society establishes institutions such as government to give effect to this fundamental rule. That is why society (via its police and courts) will punish you if you use your body to assault or kill another, or take someone else's property without their permission. It's telling you what you may not do with your body.

The whole of society is vitally interested in protecting the life and property of each individual in that society. Or should be.

In its legal institutions it does so primarily by prohibiting aggression.

Without this rule social living quickly breaks down and civilisation crumbles.

The prohibition is all-encompassing, includes all humans, and admits no exceptions -- It matters not whether the victim aggressed against is awake or sleeping, conscious or unconscious, old or young, dependent or independent, intelligent or stupid, large or small, black or white, citizen or alien, sick or healthy, willing or unwilling. Etc.

Babies in the womb are human babies. They are entitled to the same protections as any other human.

Yes, they might not legally be persons in the way the law uses that term for matters like inheritance, contract, liability, and so on. But they are emphatically human in every other respect. Like all other humans of whatever status or condition, they may not be intentionally or negligently killed.

I wouldn't be able to post the pictures and videos of a 20 week old foetus getting aborted because it would violate the content policies of this forum for being graphic violence.

 

[rambo919]

You quote matrix And I ask you.. but you don't answer. And you ask me my question ... so whats your answer?

Well that is the answer then isnt it?

Just stop fishing already I am not biting.

 

[rh1]

So 18 years of shitty life... no love, hate...

What type of adult will that kid be ?

Nothing stops people from healing from their shitty life and go on to have a great life , take these two people: (I dont like their form of entertainment but they are succesful):

1. Tyler Perry
2. Oprah Winfrey

**** even Charlize Theron came out of an abusive home.

You make almost like a bad start, means they dont have any chance for happiness.

 

[rambo919]

Why? Why do the rights of the fetus take priority over the rights of the woman?

Because the fetus is just as much a baby at conception as it is when it is born.... unless you can give me a scientific test that absolutely confirms this mythical point of transformation?

 

[rh1]

I wouldn't be able to post the pictures and videos of a 20 week old foetus getting aborted because it would violate the content policies of this forum for being graphic violence.

We should ask the moderators, to me it is violence, however, to alot of forum members it is not. I bet if they actually watch/see this, their ignorant argument that the baby is not a baby falls flat.

 

[rambo919]

Babies rights begin when they are born.

Then if one is prematurely born and successfully re-inserted.... did it temporarily have rights that were taken away?

Consider also that a baby can kill a woman in child birth. You can't separate the two things.

So? Are you accusing babies of manslaughter?

Are you saying it's better to murder children than to risk the potential theoretical death of the mother which might not happen anyway?

 

[tetrasect]

I dont believe the analogy fails at all.

One cannot steal from someone whether they are aware of the theft or not.
One may also not murder someone whether they are aware of it or not.
One may not murder someone, then then justify stealing from them since they cannot be cognisant of the theft as they are dead.

The temporal status of an individual's congisance of their patrimony has no bearing on their right to maintain it.

An unborn child - in the absence of direct measures to terminate him/her - will eventually come to cognisize their existence.

If it is not okay to steal from someone, or kill someone even if they are not aware of it, how can it be justified to kill a baby because you assume they are not able to cognisize it yet.

Can you validate the assumption that the brain signals in the fetus' spinal column and brain are not capable of interpreting pain?

You're taking this to the extreme so let's dial it back a bit.

How do you justify killing a fly even though it is cognizant, and surprisingly intelligent (more intelligent even than a newborn baby)?

 

[Vorastra]

Why ?
Why is human life even important ?

Are you the last in your line?

 

[tetrasect]

Why ?
Why is human life even important ?

You're asking the very same people who are cheering the Russians on, over in the Ukraine thread.

 

[TelkomUseless]

Well that is the answer then isnt it?

Just stop fishing already I am not biting.

So its a yes then. Good to know.