## reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

<<vv^^whirlwind^^

‘tis a Thing of beauty
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

Ichthus77
ILP Legend

Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Motor Daddy wrote:As long as the ambilocal cord is attached to mom it is just a mass growing in mom. When the cord is cut at birth, the baby is feeding on its own. It does not share mom's blood supply. It breathes air on its own using its own lungs.

Humans breathe using their lungs. An unborn baby does not breathe using its lungs.
Humans don't rely on mom's blood supply.
Humans do not rely on mom's diet.
Humans don't get alcohol and drugs in THEIR system if mom drinks and does drugs.

That unborn baby is just a part of mom, not an individual human life.

When the cord is cut it is detached from mom and no longer mom, it is an individual human life.

That's how I see it, your mileage may vary.

So the debate goes on, with so many people having so many opinions. That is to be expected.

Do you agree that bacteria, and even cells, are forms of life? If so, how do you reconcile that with your conviction that a foetus is not a form of life?

What is NOT to be expected is FORCING one opinion (religion) on another human being and dictating how another person lives.

What opponents of abortion rights are trying to do is FORCE other people to live their lives according to THEIR opinion (religion).

So I say again, if they don't agree with abortion then they should not get one. Simple really.

Did you read the rest of my post?
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Magnus Anderson wrote:Do you agree that bacteria, and even cells, are forms of life? If so, how do you reconcile that with your conviction that a foetus is not a form of life?

I do agree that bacteria and cells are forms of life, but they are not HUMAN life. Murder is the taking of HUMAN life. I kill deer and eat them, that is not murder. It is legal to kill a deer because it is a deer. It is illegal to kill a human, because it is human.

So the difference in bacteria, cells, deer, cows, chickens, pigs life to that of HUMAN life is that of being human. We kill and eat chickens, pigs etc which are ALL life forms, but we do not kill humans and eat them.

So what is a human you ask? Like I defined before, when a baby is born and breathes its own air and the cord is cut then that is an individual human life. Before that time of being born the unborn baby is just a part of mom, which is not an individual human life. It doesn't breathe air. It relies on mom's blood supply. It relies on mom's diet etc. It is not a human until it is born and the cord is cut. That is how I define it. That is where I draw the line. Other people define it differently.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Did you read the rest of my post?

You mean:
My understanding is that, in the US, it's currently believed that women have a constitutional right to abort their unborn babies -- I think they call it "Right to Privacy" -- which means that no state can regulate abortion during the first couple of months of pregnancy. That's an instance of one group of people forcing their will on another group of people. Moreover, the portion of reality they are trying to control is many times larger than anything any individual state is trying to control.

Yes, I read it. They are not forcing their will on a group of people while allowing abortion, they are allowing people to get an abortion if they so choose. Nobody is forcing anyone to GET an abortion. If someone doesn't want an abortion they don't get one. Simple. If someone wants an abortion then they get one. Simple. Everyone has a right to choose, and nobody is FORCED to do something.

But taking that right away is FORCING people to NOT get an abortion. They are FORCING a woman to carry a baby full term. That is where the problem is, because it is one group of people FORCING their way of life on others.
When everyone is free to choose there is no force, it is choice. If opponents to abortion don't like abortion then they are not forced to get one. If they don't like other people getting an abortion that is too damn bad, they need to mind their own business and stay out of other people's lives. Nobody is forcing THEM to do anything, but they are trying to force other people to do something.

Motor Daddy
Philosopher

Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Child-Sacrifice (Cult of Saturn) has been at war with Child-Adulation (Cult of Jupiter) for millenniums now.

The difference is that liberal-leftists are deluded into believing they have "advanced" and "progressed beyond" child-sacrifice. This is the delusion and Big Lie.

Saturn = kill your children to convenience the parents = moral Evilness
Jupiter = kill the parents to save the children = moral Goodness

Morality hasn't changed in 3000 years.
Ethics hasn't changed in 3000 years.

Only the words/labels/names of the cults, have changed. The essence has stayed the same, unchanged, no (liberal-left moral) "PROGRESS" has been made.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Motor Daddy wrote:

“ I do agree that bacteria and cells are forms of life, but they are not HUMAN life. Murder is the taking of HUMAN life. I kill deer and eat them, that is not murder. It is legal to kill a deer because it is a deer. It is illegal to kill a human, because it is human.

So the difference in bacteria, cells, deer, cows, chickens, pigs life to that of HUMAN life is that of being human. We kill and eat chickens, pigs etc which are ALL life forms, but we do not kill humans and eat them.

Ecmandu replies:

Fuck you.

Life is a sidewalk. Life is the ground beneath you.

You couldn’t see life if it slapped you in the face.

You think you’re cleansed because of a fucking state law?

It doesn’t work that way.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

“Verily, I say unto you, should you even hurt one speck of dust upon this world, you shall be cast to the pits of hell forever more”
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Not sure why all the American religionists are in such a funk about abortion.

God is a far more effective abortionist; miscarrying far more foetuses than modern medicine. Most foetuses he aborts within the first couple of days. God aborts as many as 70% of all pregnancies without the mothers permission.

A human abortionist is so much more moral than God.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher

Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Can you see all the way down the road? No? Then let God be God.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

Ichthus77
ILP Legend

Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Gail Collins at the NYT

'During the debate [in the Senate], Republicans claimed most Americans are opposed to late-term abortion, while Democrats noted that polls show the public wants abortion to be a matter between a woman and her doctor. Easy to imagine both being true — most people are uncomfortable with the idea of ending a pregnancy when the fetus is well developed, but there’s long been a deeply reasonable yearning to keep the government out of a matter so private and personal.'

Of course, my point is that even if most Americans believed in abortion on demand and the polls showed that most Americans don't want abortion to be a matter between a woman and her doctor but a woman and her priest, my own set of assumptions remains the same.

That these points of view are still just and moral prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein.

Beliefs and opinion polls don't make the fact that both sides are able to come up with reasonable arguments go away. That [philosophically or otherwise] there is no optimal frame of mind in the vicinity of the Golden Mean.

Well, unless, of course, someone here has found it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ion-myths/

Ruth Marcus at the washington post

'Two pernicious myths about abortion rights have emerged in the wake of the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade. Together, they illustrate how intractable the abortion debate is — and how extreme.

'The first myth — demonstrably laughable — is that eliminating constitutional protection for abortion rights would remove this contentious issue from courts and leave decisions to the democratic process, where it should have been all along.

'The second — far more dangerous — is that abortion opponents would be satisfied with such an outcome, and the consequent national patchwork of access to abortion. They wouldn’t. Getting rid of Roe is just the start. For those who believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, allowing it to remain legal in wide swaths of the country is intolerable.'

The first myth because abortion will never be just a legal issue. Instead it is profoundly embedded in political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein that most men and women don't see as political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein. They see it [either as Humanists or religionists] as essentially/objectively moral or immoral. Most views here being predicated on one or another God.

The second myth because those who do see abortion as essentially/objectively immoral see other things the same way. Like homosexuality and gay marriage.

Indeed, some extremists on the right see it in regard to people of color and Jews and Muslims too.

At the extreme end of Alito's frame of mind lies fascism and the Nazis.

Though never in a million years did I imagine seeing that in my lifetime. As for my daughter's lifetime, the odds actually favor it given the world as it is today.

Unless of course I'm wrong.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

What about Mary Land, coward???

Why can she not take responsibility for herself, for her actions, for her dead, unborn child???

Explain yourself.

iambiguous wrote:Unless of course I'm wrong.

When were you ever right, though??? To be right, you need to actually respond to Philosophy.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

If you are a post-abortive mother/father, or if you feel you've made too many mistakes as a mother/father, do you know God died to prove he loves you the same yesterday, today, and forever? I can refer you to good people who can help you find healing.

…unfortunately, even though there is forgiveness and healing in what I just said, it will come off as quite the opposite to those who aren’t ready to hear it.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

Ichthus77
ILP Legend

Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

I know an 86 year old woman who thinks her abortion is the best option she had in her life. She had already had two children. She told me a story about her and her sister on a long trip. They stopped in Vegas and won $7000.00 dollars back in the 50’s. They drove to the only abortion clinic in Alabama at the time and gave them$7000.00 dollars. Everyone at the clinic was floored.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Ecmandu wrote:I know an 86 year old woman who thinks her abortion is the best option she had in her life. She had already had two children. She told me a story about her and her sister on a long trip. They stopped in Vegas and won $7000.00 dollars back in the 50’s. They drove to the only abortion clinic in Alabama at the time and gave them$7000.00 dollars. Everyone at the clinic was floored.

K: this story is a lie... there were no abortion clinics in Alabama in the
1950's... Abortions were not legal until 1973 ... the year of Roe V Wade...

Kropotkin
Now if only I could get the other "members of the collection of truth"
to put me on ignore, life would be good..

PK
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend

Posts: 11201
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I know an 86 year old woman who thinks her abortion is the best option she had in her life. She had already had two children. She told me a story about her and her sister on a long trip. They stopped in Vegas and won $7000.00 dollars back in the 50’s. They drove to the only abortion clinic in Alabama at the time and gave them$7000.00 dollars. Everyone at the clinic was floored.

K: this story is a lie... there were no abortion clinics in Alabama in the
1950's... Abortions were not legal until 1973 ... the year of Roe V Wade...

Kropotkin

Yeah. That’s why they gave them that money. Abortion clinics have been around since before roe v wade.

That’s why it even came to the Supreme Court in the first place.

No abortion clinics. No case.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Maureen Dowd at the NYT

'WASHINGTON — During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Amy Coney Barrett tried to reassure Democrats who were leery of her role as a “handmaid” in a Christian group called “People of Praise.”

'The group has a male-dominated hierarchy and a rigid view of sexuality reflecting conservative gender norms and rejecting openly gay men and women. Men, the group’s decision makers, “headed” their wives.

'Justice Barrett said then that she would not impose her personal beliefs on the country. “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say ‘I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion’ — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said amicably. “It’s not the law of Amy. It’s the law of the American people.”

'Yet that’s what seems to be coming. Like a royal queen, she will impose her will on the world. It will be the law of Amy. And Sam. And Clarence. And Neil. And Brett.

'It’s outrageous that five or six people in lifelong unaccountable jobs are about to impose their personal views on the rest of the country. While they will certainly provide the legal casuistry for their opinion, let’s not be played for fools: The Supreme Court’s impending repeal of Roe will be owed to more than judicial argumentation. There are prior worldviews at work in this upheaval.'

Of course, no doubt, back in the Sixties and Seventies, there were the conservative equivalents of Dowd making exactly the same point about the Supremes then. Only from the other end of the ideological spectrum.

Then this part:

'As a Catholic whose father lived through the Irish Catholics “need not apply” era, I’m happy to see Catholics do well in the world. There is an astonishing preponderance of Catholics on the Supreme Court — six out of the nine justices, and a seventh, Neil Gorsuch, was raised as a Catholic and went to the same Jesuit boys’ high school in a Maryland suburb that Brett Kavanaugh and my nephews did, Georgetown Prep.

'My father was furious that Catholic presidential candidates Al Smith and J.F.K. had to defend themselves against scurrilous charges that, if they got to the White House, they would take their orders from the pope.

'One must tread carefully here. A Catholic signed on to the Roe v. Wade decision and another was in the court majority that upheld it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Catholic, has expressed support for Roe, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Catholic, may be working for a compromise decision that can uphold Roe.

'Still, this Catholic feels an intense disquiet that Catholic doctrine may be shaping (or misshaping) the freedom and the future of millions of women, and men. There is a corona of religious fervor around the court, a churchly ethos that threatens to turn our whole country upside down.'

The role that religion plays in all of this. And here the trickiest part revolves around the fact that the preponderance of Christians do believe in Judgment Day. So it's not just a matter of obeying the law but of committing a sin.

So, sure, if you are a Catholic and you follow the Vatican's script in regard to abortion, of course you are going to do everything in your power to please God here. Indeed, the fact that you are on the Supreme Court means that you have the capacity to impose your own religious dogmas on millions and millions who are not Catholics.

After all, that's how objectivism works when the objectivists themselves gain access to power.

You just have to pray they are your objectivists and not theirs.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Motor Daddy wrote:I do agree that bacteria and cells are forms of life, but they are not HUMAN life.

Alright, so your argument is that a foetus is not an instance of human life. In other words, you are not denying that it is an instance of life. You are, properly speaking, saying that a human foetus is not a human being.

But, if a given foetus F is a human foetus, and if every foetus is an instance of life, doesn't it logically follow that the given foetus F is also an instance of human life?

The opposite of human life is non-human life. The word "human" denotes a species. A human life is simply a life that belongs to the human species. "Non-human", on the other hand, refers to any species that isn't human. So if you're claiming that a human foetus is a non-human life, exactly what species does it belong to? Alien species? And inventing a species category specifically for unborn babies would be a bit strange, wouldn't it?

Murder is the taking of HUMAN life. I kill deer and eat them, that is not murder. It is legal to kill a deer because it is a deer. It is illegal to kill a human, because it is human.

The thing is that murder isn't merely the taking of human life. In order for an act, such as that of abortion, to be an instance of murder, additional conditions must be met. If we're using the word "murder" in the legal sense, then the additional condition that must be met is that it must be prohibited by the law. If we're using it in the moral sense, it's a lot more complicated than that. In each case, it goes beyond "the taking of human life".

You mean:
My understanding is that, in the US, it's currently believed that women have a constitutional right to abort their unborn babies -- I think they call it "Right to Privacy" -- which means that no state can regulate abortion during the first couple of months of pregnancy. That's an instance of one group of people forcing their will on another group of people. Moreover, the portion of reality they are trying to control is many times larger than anything any individual state is trying to control.

Yes, I read it. They are not forcing their will on a group of people while allowing abortion, they are allowing people to get an abortion if they so choose. Nobody is forcing anyone to GET an abortion. If someone doesn't want an abortion they don't get one. Simple. If someone wants an abortion then they get one. Simple. Everyone has a right to choose, and nobody is FORCED to do something.

They are placing restrictions on what each one of the individual states can do. They are forcing every state to allow abortion during the first couple of months of pregnancy. They are very much restricting their freedom.

Your best bet at this point is to argue something along the lines of "Yes, they are limiting their freedom, but the kind of freedom they are taking away from them is the freedom to limit other people's freedom -- and that's a good thing." I would argue that's not necessarily a good thing because one of the ways people protect other people from harm, and guide them in the right direction, is by limiting their freedom -- by imposing restrictions on what they can do, how frequently, how easily, etc. As an example, one of the ways you can protect people from the negative consequences of eating sugary foods is by making such foods less accessible. Similarly, you can protect women from making bad decisions that they would later regret by making it a bit more difficult to abort a baby.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

I don't think US constitutional law gives the right to benignly direct people to good directions. That is implicitly acknowledged to be a possible aim of government, but to be outside of the scope of the constitution and the bill of rights.

It does, however, restrict rights in cases where other rights are threatened, as is the case of slander for free speech or seeking to cause terror for the right to keep and bear arms.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway

origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Restrictions can also be self-imposed. What if 80% of the people living on a territory decided that they do not want to be surrounded by abortion clinics? Roe v Wade would not allow for such a majority backed ban to be put into practice.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Restrictions on rights guaranteed by the constitution cannot be imposed by anybody in any circumstance in US territory concerning US citizens, unless such restrictions can be shown to be in favour of the protection of rights that cannot be otherwise protected.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway

origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

Roe v Wade, however, makes appeals to extremely nebulous rights that aren't listed explicitly in the constitution or bill of rights.

Their strongest case is a right to liberty.

They then would have to show that the liberty to commit abortion does not violate another important right, like the right not to be arbitrarily exterminated, in order for the constitution to guarantee unconditional protection.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway

origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: reports say Roe vs Wade to be struck down

The repeal doesn't explicitly define human life such that abortion violates a right to it, but it acknolwedges that a debate on the subject is not settled and thus must be left up to legislative authority.

The wording on the law that was allowed to pass by the repeal, for example, only makes it illegal to end "an unborn human life." If a person could prove that a fetus is not an unborn human life conclusively in court, then they could make appeal to a right to liberty and have it protected as a constitutional guarantee.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway

origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Previous

Return to Current Events

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users