US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade
Discussion
Some of the “Red” states seem to be taking the stance of a complete ban on terminations unless the mother’s life is at risk.
Maybe time to point out that a study in 2012 concluded that the statistical risk of maternal mortality during childbirth was 14x higher than the associated risk with legal abortion….
Maybe time to point out that a study in 2012 concluded that the statistical risk of maternal mortality during childbirth was 14x higher than the associated risk with legal abortion….
BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
Seventy said:
BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
“Have the injection or lose your livelihood and be unable to provide for yourself and your family as you’ll be banned from working or leaving the country” (as seen in the USA and Canada).
“You can’t have an abortion because we’ve decided you cannot have one” (as will happen in multiple states)
In both situations the state is taking choice away. By coercion or law, the right to choose what happens with your body is removed. Again, I find both situations repulsive.
I can see why some of the covid ultras are finding it a bit uncomfortable. Do they realise quite how hateful and disrespectful they’d become towards other people?
I can see how hateful and disrespectful you’ve become, yes. “You can’t have an abortion because we’ve decided you cannot have one” (as will happen in multiple states)
In both situations the state is taking choice away. By coercion or law, the right to choose what happens with your body is removed. Again, I find both situations repulsive.
I can see why some of the covid ultras are finding it a bit uncomfortable. Do they realise quite how hateful and disrespectful they’d become towards other people?
Give it a rest with the covid rubbish, this isn’t the thread for it.
You really need to let it go and move on. 99.99% of the population have.
This is about the removal of bodily autonomy, not covid. The state thinking it has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do (under threat) with your body started last year. Unfortunately this is what happens when you demand the state decides what happens to someone’s body.
Rufus Stone said:
ATG said:
Worms aren't sentient. Do they need more protection than a sentient being?
Are they not?https://www.historytoday.com/archive/natural-histo...
But that's missing the point.
Your argument was that things that aren't sentient need more protection than things that are.
A worm is less sentient than a human. Does a worm's life therefore need more protection than a human's? Clearly it does not, therefore your assertion cannot be true in general, so putting it forward as you did is unconvincing. You could try to refine it to explain why it applies to a gamete/fetus/embryo/baby/OAP if you like, but you can't say it in the general case, coz it clearly ain't so.
Gweeds said:
Let’s remember that every one of the judges who voted to overturn this said they considered Roe vs Wade settled law. Every one.
So they lied.
And this won’t stop abortion. It’ll just drive it underground, make it more dangerous and affect poor and women of colour more.
This doesn't appear to be true - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/scotus-justi...So they lied.
And this won’t stop abortion. It’ll just drive it underground, make it more dangerous and affect poor and women of colour more.
BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
Paragraph isn’t about covid. It’s about government forcing a medical procedure on those who don’t want it.
Bodily autonomy isn’t a pick n’ mix.
Rubbish. There are precious few things that aren't "pick n' mix", and bodily autonomy certainly isn't one of them.Bodily autonomy isn’t a pick n’ mix.
Obvious problems with the bodily autonomy line of argument:
Is the fetus/embryo/baby's unborn body part of its mother's body in the first place? I would have thought it was pretty clearly at least more than just a part of its mother's body, therefore haven't you immediately got competing bodily autonomy rights between the mother and the "child"?
If you were to say that the mother's bodily autonomy trumps any rights of the unborn "child" because bodily autonomy is absolute, wouldn't that mean you could abort the "child" right up to the point of birth?
ATG said:
Fine, then justify why that's the case.
I'm no fan of all life is sacrosanct, but I do think that barring extenuating circumstances that embryo deserves a fair crack of the whip as much as anyone else. The whole termination argument is primarily about desire, not need; the desire of the woman not to have a baby at that time.Having said that, there are far to many people on the planet already.
Kermit power said:
Silverbullet767 said:
loafer123 said:
That is correct, they are entitled to that belief.
They are not entitled to force others to adhere to that belief.
They are not entitled to force others to adhere to that belief.
100% don't be a 'tard Rufus. Life begins at birth. End of
By that logic, I could punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill the baby the day before she's due to give birth, and I'd only be guilty of assault.
I'd be more comfortable with the notion of life beginning at the point at which a foetus could realistically survive outside the womb were the mother to die, for example.
But the problem is more general. There is no obvious stage of development that neatly defines a boundary between not alive and alive, or at least the start of an independent life in some sense.
And there's a fundamental problem with using a practical matter (the capacity of medical intervention to preserve life) to define moral responsibilities and worth. They're fundamentally different things and, to first order at least, they are independent.
Edited by ATG on Saturday 25th June 10:42
Rufus Stone said:
I'm no fan of all life is sacrosanct, but I do think that barring extenuating circumstances that embryo deserves a fair crack of the whip as much as anyone else. The whole termination argument is primarily about desire, not need; the desire of the woman not to have a baby at that time.
Having said that, there are far to many people on the planet already.
What are you on about? Where have you got this idea from? Having said that, there are far to many people on the planet already.
Looking to be educated here
Reading the judges comments they’re not making any statement about the right and wrong of abortion. They’re just saying that the 14th amendment doesn’t provide you with a legal basis for it which having quickly googled the 14th amendment I’d be inclined to agree with.
This opens the way for individual states to decide, turning abortion into a big voting issue. Or for someone to get a plain and simple ‘abortion is legal now’ law on the books if possible.
I don’t exactly see this as the US turning into a taliban state?
Reading the judges comments they’re not making any statement about the right and wrong of abortion. They’re just saying that the 14th amendment doesn’t provide you with a legal basis for it which having quickly googled the 14th amendment I’d be inclined to agree with.
This opens the way for individual states to decide, turning abortion into a big voting issue. Or for someone to get a plain and simple ‘abortion is legal now’ law on the books if possible.
I don’t exactly see this as the US turning into a taliban state?
BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
98elise said:
Can't you keep your Covid lunacy to the Covid threads?
It’s other posters bringing up covid. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of views on bodily autonomy. Rufus Stone said:
No, my argument that a human embryo deserves protection. I made no reference to any other animals.
Even when that child will be born into a situation where it isn’t wanted? Or won’t be cared for? Or might be abused? It might even be hated for being born.I don’t know about you, but I would much rather that women had an abortion if they felt they weren’t in a position to properly care for and love a child, rather than give birth to a child they don’t want, or give birth in a relationship or situation they know to be a train wreck.
Rufus Stone said:
ATG said:
Fine, then justify why that's the case.
I'm no fan of all life is sacrosanct, but I do think that barring extenuating circumstances that embryo deserves a fair crack of the whip as much as anyone else. The whole termination argument is primarily about desire, not need; the desire of the woman not to have a baby at that time.My view is that to suffer a lost opportunity, not only must an opportunity have been lost but one must also know that an opportunity has been lost. By extension that means if someone drops a 10 ton weight on my head on purpose, painlessly snuffing me out in an instant, I don't think they've done me any harm at all. They've harmed my friends and family, but not me. I've simply ceased. The value of my life is not something internal to me. It is entirely external. It's entirely in other people's heads.
Rufus Stone said:
Zumbruk said:
Rufus Stone said:
Medically life begins at conception,
Wrong.Repeat this as often as you like, it'll never be true.
"The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals "
IOW, they're a political group of dribbling f
ktards, not a medical or scientific organisation. Their opinions are worth less than the steam off my st.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff