Jump to content

US-Roe vs Wade overturned


CharonY
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

For lack of supernatural devices that detect souls, I guess the law must settle on using fetal viability as the standard. 

If Roe is overturned that will no longer be the case, and many states will indeed resort to the supernatural detection of souls. Unfortunately if you are making the laws you are under no obligation provide evidence the fetus has a soul; you simply claim it is so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

The third trimester abortions that seem to fire up many of the appeals to emotion are already rare, under one percent.  One source (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) puts the totality of abortions after 21 weeks at around one percent.

I feel like my country is returning to the dark ages.   

I don't think we need much of a metaphysical argument to support scientifically that those 10,000+ abortions every year in North America are more likely to cause pain, and loss essence, to the fetuses than that of the 10,000 done earliest in pregnancy. Does it not make sense to have stricter controls as the fetus progresses in development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Does it not make sense to have stricter controls as the fetus progresses in development?

It does, and those are already in place. Sadly, the laws are reverting to making it impossible often before the woman even knows she’s pregnant, and in many states plan on charging the woman and her doctor and the Uber driver who connected them with murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2022 at 10:31 PM, StringJunky said:

Clandestine mifepristone/misoprostol distribution is about to become a thing, methinks . With the advent of such medication, it may not have such far reaching effects as in the past that the GOP/religious wingnuts  hope. 

They actually thought about that, too.

Quote

Residents of states that would quickly ban all abortion methods if Roe were overturned — including Texas, Missouri, Utah and Tennessee — would be legally prohibited from having telemedicine abortion consultations from any location in their state, even if the doctor were located in a state with legal abortion. Such patients would have to travel to a state where an online, video or phone consultation is legal — the IP address of the computer or phone they were using would identify where they were located. Then, they would have to receive the pills by mail at an address in a state with legal abortion, even if it were a post office box or a hotel.

Some patients are already doing this because they live in one of the states that ban the use of telemedicine for abortion. Some aspects of those laws are unclear, including whether patients who take the pills after returning to their home state are violating their state’s law.

 

Of course it is unclear what is going to happen, but clearly folks are working on closing that access, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

They actually thought about that, too.

Of course it is unclear what is going to happen, but clearly folks are working on closing that access, too. 

I suppose all we can do is get the popcorn out and see how it pans out. It seems to me that the idea of 'settled law' is up the Swanee. I think until politics is removed from such decisions, this mess is going to go on on forever. There seems to be no respect for medical expertise, everything seems subject to political whims in the US. I find it gross tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I suppose all we can do is get the popcorn out and see how it pans out.

Women who have natural miscarriages will be charged with murder. That's where this particular pan is going unless something halts the extremists pushing this agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Women who have natural miscarriages will be charged with murder. That's where this particular pan is going unless something halts the extremists pushing this agenda. 

Seems like the plan goes even further. If they're allowed to use the wording from this draft opinion, anything that's not specifically called out in the Constitution won't be protected any more. Say goodbye to things like interracial marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Seems like the plan goes even further. If they're allowed to use the wording from this draft opinion, anything that's not specifically called out in the Constitution won't be protected any more. Say goodbye to things like interracial marriage.

Would the Right be so keen if they thought forcibly preserving the lives of unborn black and hispanic babies might tilt the vote against them in the future with larger ethnic voting pool? I bet they would spin on a penny and come up with some other ulterior crock of shit why not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Say goodbye to things like interracial marriage.

Yeah, the same sex marriage decision was also based on this underlying principle of personal privacy. It's about much more than abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Would the Right be so keen if they thought forcibly preserving the lives of unborn black and hispanic babies might tilt the vote against them in the future with larger ethnic voting pool? I bet they would spin on a penny and come up with some other ulterior crock of shit why not.

Vote? They're trying to make sure that doesn't happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't think we need much of a metaphysical argument to support scientifically that those 10,000+ abortions every year in North America are more likely to cause pain, and loss essence, to the fetuses than that of the 10,000 done earliest in pregnancy. Does it not make sense to have stricter controls as the fetus progresses in development?

I'm not aware of pain meters for fetuses or evidence that the methods presently used are inherently painful.  IIRC, almost all of those latter stage abortions are for fetuses with severe congenital defects, so any regulating should take into account what later suffering is being compassionately spared.  Some latter stage abortions are also done where the mother's life is in danger from continued pregnancy, so that weighs in as well.  So I'm unsure what stricter controls you have in mind and what their scientific basis would be.

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

If Roe is overturned that will no longer be the case, and many states will indeed resort to the supernatural detection of souls. Unfortunately if you are making the laws you are under no obligation provide evidence the fetus has a soul; you simply claim it is so.

As these things play out, I am keenly reminded of that famous Robert Heinlein quote about man not being a rational animal but rather a rationalizing animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'm not aware of pain meters for fetuses 

Are you aware of any for (insert minority of your choice here)? Yet I'm sure you believe they share your sense of what pain is.

Do you not suspect late term fetuses would as well? (and that very early after conception they would not?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you not suspect late term fetuses would as well? (and that very early after conception they would not?)

Given that even birth control measures are currently being criminalized, I reckon this doesn't much matter for the particular issues being debated across the US right now. 

Even if it did, I don't suppose a 15-week old collection of cells could be considered as "feeling pain."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you aware of any for (insert minority of your choice here)? Yet I'm sure you believe they share your sense of what pain is.

Do you not suspect late term fetuses would as well? (and that very early after conception they would not?)

Did it hurt when you were born? And that's as late-term as you can get. The abortion drugs are no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to have done a 90o turn and gone from a discussion about Supreme Court decisions and leaks, to abortion rights.

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Even if it did, I don't suppose a 15-week old collection of cells could be considered as "feeling pain."

Is that a criteria we want to use to determine candidacy for abortion ?
As long as they feel no pan, they can be terminated ?

I know you guys are a lot more nuanced than that.
We need to first estabilish what is, and when, a 'person' ( baby or fetus ) acheives personhood, at which point the mother cannot have that 'person' killed in order to relieve the burden of having to carry around a 'collection of cells'.
For some mothers, that 'collection of cells' is a burden even after birth, as evidenced by the number of babies/children given up for adoption.

I, myself, am of the opinion that it is a personal choice that a woman must make, and live with. And that choice being a private matter is the gist of the '72 Roe vs Wade decision.
But I also realize that others may feel more strongly one way or the other, and as a socety, we must strive for balance. It is not my place to dictate other's opinions or morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick note: taking a part of one sentence as a quote, stripped of context and of the primary point I was making in a longer paragraph, is not an approach I respond to.  Sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Quick note: taking a part of one sentence as a quote, stripped of context and of the primary point I was making in a longer paragraph, is not an approach I respond to.  Sorry. 

Yes, must agree with that, and it does happen constantly with me. Yet when pointed out am yet met again with facetiousness and/or sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you aware of any for (insert minority of your choice here)? Yet I'm sure you believe they share your sense of what pain is.

Do you not suspect late term fetuses would as well? (and that very early after conception they would not?)

The law doesn't regard pain, infliction or tolerance thereof, as a criterion for any decision. It certainly is not under consideration by legislatures who forbid abortion to foetuses with serious birth defects or in-utero injuries that would condemn them, if born, to a short or long life of suffering. It is not under consideration by legislators who vote against assisted suicide for terminal patients. And obviously, legislators who send people to incompetent executioners don't give a flying concern.  

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

that a criteria we want to use to determine candidacy for abortion ?
As long as they feel no pan, they can be terminated ?

Nope, but you ought to be asking JCM as he introduced it. Twice. 

I quoted it and replied in context. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a valid area to talk about, but could do with splitting off. One's political and one's moral/ethical/philosophical  in nature.

To the original political theme:

I read somewhere that restricting buying it in from outside the US is not feasibly enforceable. A telemedical consultation from outside the country wouldn't be unfeasible either.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Quick note: taking a part of one sentence as a quote, stripped of context and of the primary point I was making in a longer paragraph, is not an approach I respond to.  Sorry. 

 

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'm not aware of pain meters for fetuses or evidence that the methods presently used are inherently painful. 

So for context, what are you getting at? Can you empathize with a 9 month post conception fetus or just one that passes from the womb? Or neither?

I can agree or disagree with the remainder of this:

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

  IIRC, almost all of those latter stage abortions are for fetuses with severe congenital defects, so any regulating should take into account what later suffering is being compassionately spared.  Some latter stage abortions are also done where the mother's life is in danger from continued pregnancy, so that weighs in as well.  So I'm unsure what stricter controls you have in mind and what their scientific basis would be.

Depending on that and more context. I'm also unsure of what stricter controls need to be put in place and what their scientific basis might be, but...

not directing at you in particular...

.... I'm pretty sure assuming ill will of everyone with contrary opinions, even if those include many with poor motives, politically driven, or religiously driven...won't lead to answers.

From MigL's link:

 "Alito writes that by raising the point he isn’t casting aspersions on anyone. “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” he writes."

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The law doesn't regard pain, infliction or tolerance thereof, as a criterion for any decision. It certainly is not under consideration by legislatures who forbid abortion to foetuses with serious birth defects or in-utero injuries that would condemn them, if born, to a short or long life of suffering. It is not under consideration by legislators who vote against assisted suicide for terminal patients. And obviously, legislators who send people to incompetent executioners don't give a flying concern.  

The SCOTUS at least believe it deserves consideration for those being put to death:

 https://www.npr.org/2019/04/01/708729884/supreme-court-rules-against-death-row-inmate-who-appealed-execution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The SCOTUS at least believe it deserves consideration for those being put to death:

Aha. Is that the same consideration a defective baby gets? 

Quote

A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that a death row inmate with a rare medical condition is not entitled to an alternative method of execution just because the one the state uses could cause him several minutes of great pain and suffering.

Pretty much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I quoted it and replied in context. 

It was meant for all who were discussing the pain aspect.
I quoted you because you put it most eloquently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.