Supreme Court to take on Texas abortion restrictions.

Moderators: I am nobody, Deku Tree

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41090
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Contact:

#21

Post by е и ժ е я » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:17 am

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PUMPKINS!, post: 1573615, member: 18119"]Well, I suppose one shouldn't be legally required to do anything like that by law, but I'd hope it wouldn't take the law to encourage the proper outcome, and I think you'd not need such laws to push you as you have always come off as a very responsible and decent person who would do the right thing on behalf of the kid, even considering it was her fault for not being honest with you.[/QUOTE]
That's the stumbling point because then we are talking in shades of grey. It would be more responsible to pursue being the primary guardian for a child if she were the other option at that point, I'm hesitant to admit. I don't think that's necessarily a morally right option by her or by me, but a 'what is best for the child' solution. In the case that I thought she'd chosen to have the child rationally, I would be comfortable simply providing support if it were viable (cleveland is not a good place to try to find a job, trust me) but she would then have been a different person altogether and I probably wouldn't have broken up with her which prompted her to go off the pill in a self-destructive spiral. There are a lot of being a better person options that started well before that point, really.

Despite what you might think, the US actually has an abhorrent track record for children and basically no social safety net. Compared to where I live now, there may as well be none.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#22

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:43 am

[QUOTE="Hell Orb, post: 1573617, member: 25415"]Despite what you might think, the US actually has an abhorrent track record for children and basically no social safety net. Compared to where I live now, there may as well be none.[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for all 50 states, but I know California is definitely easy on people. My sister relies on the state and has off and on for the last ~6 years to varying degrees. Same for every family of illegal immigrants crammed inside the social services building. It's certainly not perfect, it doesn't last forever, and it isn't luxury by any means, but it will stabilize you while you get your s*** together.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#23

Post by The Missing Link » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:39 pm

^ To use California as the basis state for social services that the country as a whole provides is probably a severe error. California is, admittedly, one of the states with the best social support services.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#24

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:08 am

[QUOTE="The Missing Link, post: 1573729, member: 19860"]^ To use California as the basis state for social services that the country as a whole provides is probably a severe error. California is, admittedly, one of the states with the best social support services.[/QUOTE]

Well, I didn't try to use it on such a basis, and mentioned that I don't know about the other states' provisions. I just do know that California does take care of people adequately (well, if you're a family/parent at least). I find it hard to imagine that none of the other 49 have anything comparable, but either way, you can just move to California. I know I would at any cost if I were a parent.

[spoiler][MEDIA=youtube]XuQzkt5a2EU[/MEDIA][/spoiler]

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41090
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Contact:

#25

Post by е и ժ е я » Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:33 am

Haha I like that idea in some ways, even though it reads as very naive. People who need financial support are pretty much the definition of those who can't afford to move cross-country, and even then California is actually a very expensive place to live compared to other states. Kind of a catch-22.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
ScottyMcGee
Posts: 5185
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: New Jersey
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

#26

Post by ScottyMcGee » Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:54 am

[QUOTE="LOOT, post: 1573606, member: 21459"]fun facts about abortion:

99% of all abortions are done after 8 months

there's a small piece of paper that comes out every time an abortion is performed, where it lists what the child would have grown up to become. There is an extra $5 fee if it says "Cancer Researcher" or "World Peace Negotiator"

if the parent likes they can put the baby back in the womb to abort it, and then they may pay a small fee to abort them a second time[/QUOTE]

million dollar prize if the paper reveals "Next Hitler" You just prevented WWIII - yay!
SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT

User avatar
spooky scary bearatons
Posts: 7007
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

#27

Post by spooky scary bearatons » Thu Nov 19, 2015 7:29 am

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PUMPKINS!, post: 1573429, member: 18119"]There's not enough restrictions on abortion as it is.[/QUOTE]

I dislike the idea of abortions, seeing as I owe my existence to my mum not having one, despite how much easier her life would be without me. But like, if you place more restrictions, people are just gonna find ways to do it anyway, potentially unsafe ways, if I'm making sense. At the least if someone chooses to abort, they can do it somewhere safe.

and also, it's not really our choice what someone does with their body. Even though I dislike the act, I still think they have the right to make their own life choices in a safe enviroment, for better or for worse... If I make any sense here.
"whether you have or have no wealth, the system might fail you, but don't fail yourself" -
GET BETTER - dan le sac Vs Scroobius Pip

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#28

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:55 pm

[QUOTE="spooky scary bearatons, post: 1573977, member: 30168"]I dislike the idea of abortions, seeing as I owe my existence to my mum not having one, despite how much easier her life would be without me. But like, if you place more restrictions, people are just gonna find ways to do it anyway, potentially unsafe ways, if I'm making sense. At the least if someone chooses to abort, they can do it somewhere safe.[/quote]

You're making sense, and I understand the concern. However, I don't believe that very many people in good countries will turn to alternative means, I feel like that's a scapegoat. If it's a frivolous abortion people will be deterred and if there is a legitimate reason then it should be accepted. But even if most or even every person seeking a frivolous abortion would turn to unsafe options, it doesn't mean we should allow the mass murder of unborn children legally. It's wrong and should never be condoned unless necessary.

Before anybody brings it up, "wrong" isn't subjective when we're killing innocent people, and they're definitely people, no less than an old person on medicine and/or machines keeping them alive is; if I took away what kept them alive, that would be murder and I'd be in jail. Just because they're in the earliest stages of their life dependent on their mother doesn't somehow devalue babies, and calling them something else aside from babies to distance ourselves from that reality doesn't change anything either.

[quote="spooky scary bearatons]and also"]

I agree. We should pretty much no say over what an adult does with their own body. As long as they don't kill somebody that they helped make then they should be free to do as they wish.

I have a question for you though. You say that you "dislike the act." Why? Either we're talking about a person or we are not. If we're not talking about a person, then what is there to dislike? And if it is a person, then you should most definitely feel stronger about murder than "dislike."

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#29

Post by The Missing Link » Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:15 pm

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PUMPKINS!, post: 1574073, member: 18119"]I have a question for you though. You say that you "dislike the act." Why? Either we're talking about a person or we are not. If we're not talking about a person, then what is there to dislike? And if it is a person, then you should most definitely feel stronger about murder than "dislike."[/QUOTE]
Shades of grey.

One of the big debates in the modern era is "when does personhood begin?" When is it, exactly, that a fœtus becomes a person with rights and privileges? So let's talk about that.

Does life happen exactly at conception? That is to say, at the moment of conception, is it murder to use the "morning after" pill to terminate the embryo? If so, then what happens to the significant chance that an egg cell is indeed fertilises but fails to implant itself on the uterine wall... or does so but somehow self-aborts later on? (This actually happens quite frequently.) Certainly at this stage the embryo didn't have self-awareness; it didn't have the wherewithal to self-terminate. So it can't be suicide. If the "morning after" pill is murder, then the millions of failed starts in women everywhere must at least be involuntary manslaughter and also subject to penalties.

Okay, so what about drawing the line at the first trimester? Three months and there you go. If you get an abortion after that, it's murder. But hold on. What about miscarriages? Miscarriages happen. Some are complete accidents; others stem from reckless or thoughtless actions. But if it's murder after a certain point, then certainly miscarriages after that point are also involuntary manslaughter.

Okay, six months. Second trimester. Okay, great! What about stillbirth? What about deaths caused by premature birth where the infant can't support itself?

To say that there's some nice fine line in the sand where personhood begins and therefore it's
Image
after that point makes it so that there would have to be exceptions to the rules. Which means that there's no hard and fast rule.

Now of course there's always the weasel answer in that, yes, all of those "involuntary manslaughter" cases above are generally through no fault of the woman carrying the child and therefore need not be considered with undue certainty. And there's perhaps a point in that. But at the same time, I'm sure you'd find exceptional cases out there where neglect might have played a part in things. Which means "fairness" dictates that we would have to consider prosecuting them to determine the truth, and that's naturally unreasonable. So we write off the whole lot as a casualty of ridiculousness.

Because it is ridiculous. We'd never really consider prosecuting a would-be mother who's just lost a child except in those strange and exceptional cases.

And so in the end, we all just draw our own personal lines and act in accordance with them. And we all just stick our fingers in our ears and LA LA LA to all the potential ambiguities and contradictions to it because that's well beyond our control.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#30

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:25 pm

The Missing Link, post: 1574084, member: 19860 wrote:Shades of grey.
The problem I find with this idea at the root is that we're already considering the act, and trying to determine how to justify it rather than starting with the fact that this is the way we were all born and we should give everyone else that same chance as well. But if we're going with this, I'm willing to explore it.
The Missing Link]One of the big debates in the modern era is wrote:exactly[/i], that a fœtus becomes a person with rights and privileges? So let's talk about that.
To interject again, who are we to even decide when "personhood" begins? That's another fundamental problem I have here. We're taking a lot of power again, power nobody took over us and here we sit to decide the fate of others, or rather, to determine when they can even be "others" on our terms. It's inherently unfair. Anyway...
The Missing Link]Does life happen exactly at conception? That is to say wrote:If so, then what happens to the significant chance that an egg cell is indeed fertilises but fails to implant itself on the uterine wall... or does so but somehow self-aborts later on?[/b] (This actually happens quite frequently.) Certainly at this stage the embryo didn't have self-awareness; it didn't have the wherewithal to self-terminate. So it can't be suicide. If the "morning after" pill is murder, then the millions of failed starts in women everywhere must at least be involuntary manslaughter and also subject to penalties.
Whatever occurs naturally during pregnancy is irrelevant to the conversation, in my opinion. It's similar to considering, after the fact, that if a woman's child was stillborn then in retrospect abortion would have been an acceptable path. We should allow nature to take its course.

I want to touch on the matter of "self-awareness" you mentioned there as well. If we're using that as measurement of this "personhood" we are determining during pregnancy, then it should apply to those who are born as well. Are those who are not self-aware or even only somewhat self-aware be considered less of a person for it? Does it dock them "humanity" points?

As an aside, some people argue for animals, or at least some of them, to be granted personhood, which is funny in light of conversations like these, I think; there's people who are arguing to essentially blur the line between humans and animals (further?) and at the same time there are those who will set standards for even being a human when you already are.
The Missing Link]Okay wrote:
Natural miscarriage is similar to SIDS and SADS but for a "fetus." However, recklessness could be considered manslaughter.

Funny thing about this subject, too; fun fact, in some cases where pregnant women who were murdered, the murderer was actually charged with double homicide.
That's an unacceptable outcome. I mean, yeah, here on VGF we can agree to disagree, and when we tire of going back and forth we'll probably do that. But I hope someone out there in a position of power won't agree to disagree. I hope these senseless, brutal murders are put to an abrupt end.

It's the worst kind of betrayal, in my opinion. Your own mother, the last person you'd think would have it out for you, who went out of their way in the vast majority of cases just to make you, hires a hitman to take you out because you're inconvenient. Mind = blown. You're not walking or talking, can't support yourself, and aren't self-aware yet. "Bust his brains out." Man, really, we kill criminals more humanely. I'd sooner be a supporter of gay rights than ever support frivolous abortion, and anybody who knows me probably knows my stance on that.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#31

Post by The Missing Link » Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:36 pm

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PUMPKINS!, post: 1574092, member: 18119"]who are we to even decide when "personhood" begins?[/quote]
In essence, wasn't that the question you asked though? You asked why dislike shouldn't be compounded by righteous anger because it might be a person. So you were, in essence, asking when is a foetus a person?
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#32

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:04 am

[QUOTE="The Missing Link, post: 1574095, member: 19860"]In essence, wasn't that the question you asked though? You asked why dislike shouldn't be compounded by righteous anger because it might be a person. So you were, in essence, asking when is a foetus a person?[/QUOTE]

The question I asked was in relation to his perspective. He doesn't seem to think they're people, so what is there to lament as he does? However, if there's a "might be a person" in there somewhere then we shouldn't be condoning this at that rate either.

The personhood is already there because they become people, as long as they aren't murdered or die naturally. They don't become space monsters or foxes or sandwiches, they're invariably people, and their chances go from X% to 0% as soon as we intervene. That's not fair no matter how you slice it and it's murder. Just because taking a pill doesn't have the same flair as blowing a person's head off with a gun doesn't make it different. People are visual creatures, it's why it can be hard to think about the future or believe in God, and apparently, why it's hard to view people as people.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41090
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Contact:

#33

Post by е и ժ е я » Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:02 am

I would equate person-hood with personality and capacity for independent thought, honestly. Children recently born are not really people in the conventional sense, they a myriad of sensory inputs which will, over time, create a person. Deprive a child of any input and he will not grow up to be a person.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
LOOT
Banned
Posts: 22939
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 1:00 am
Location: full time jail

#34

Post by LOOT » Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:32 am

abortion would be probably 1/3 a deal it is now if we just had proper prevention and safe sex knowledge

there's still issues like major issues with the fetus that would cause death anyway, rape, that's where it really needs to be a possibility

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#35

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:43 am

[QUOTE="Hell Orb, post: 1574108, member: 25415"]I would equate person-hood with personality and capacity for independent thought, honestly. Children recently born are not really people in the conventional sense, they a myriad of sensory inputs which will, over time, create a person. Deprive a child of any input and he will not grow up to be a person.[/QUOTE]

But wouldn't that make a lot of elderly and disabled people have to turn in their personhood membership cards? I do see where you're coming from, though.

The sensory deprivation thing is an interesting hypothetical. I think the kid would grow up to probably be insane, I assume.

User avatar
Cravdraa
Posts: 9362
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 1:00 am
Location: It's Round on the sides and high in the middle.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

#36

Post by Cravdraa » Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:46 pm

Haven't you heard of cases where people locked a kid in a room for years and just did the bare minimum to keep them alive? It's not a pretty result. They never learn to talk. They usually end up stunted and disfigured. The brain never develops and they end up permanently on that level. They end up with eyesight that's nearsighted to the exact dimensions of the space they were enclosed in and... they usually die a few months after being "rescued" because they literally can't function outside.

If you didn't know, sorry for being the one to tell you that's a thing. That's one of those things I wish I could forget myself.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#37

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Fri Nov 20, 2015 7:19 pm

Huh. Should have figured it has happened. Guess everything has at one point. Maybe I'll look into some of those cases. Hopefully the people responsible are thrown to wolves.

User avatar
ZeldaGirl
Posts: 17526
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Why do YOU want to know...?

#38

Post by ZeldaGirl » Sun Nov 22, 2015 12:56 pm

However, assuming she lived in America, her financial situation is irrelevant. Even before a child is born social services provides necessities for a parent, so financial issues are not a factor, at least here (and I assume most decent countries, like Canada and such).
IRHP, I'm sorry, but there are a lot of things you are greatly mistaken about concerning the financial realities of many Americans. You also are vastly underestimating the toll, both financial, emotional, and mental, having a child takes on a family (and a mother!).

Having a baby myself changed my perspective on this (somewhat). Abortion is healthcare. Women need to have access to abortion. I never realized how important that fact was until I started experiencing pregnancy and the complications that can come with it. MY life matters. My existence as a human being outweighs that of an unborn person who lacks a consciousness, who does not understand beyond the process of inherent automation. And when MY life is on the line (physically, mentally, financially), I deserve the right to choose for MY life.

This isn't about reducing the number of abortions, however. There is not a single pro-life politician I know that actually gives a **** about truly reducing the number of abortions. If they did, they would resoundingly pass the Paid Leave Act, they would provide healthcare and widespread access to contraception, they would continue to promote social programs that provide safety nets to families, they would actually demonstrate an ounce of empathy toward an individual who has made a mistake, or who finds themselves overwhelmed by their circumstances.

This isn't about reducing the number of abortions. This is about control.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#39

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:47 pm

ZeldaGirl, post: 1574394, member: 21628 wrote:IRHP, I'm sorry, but there are a lot of things you are greatly mistaken about concerning the financial realities of many Americans. You also are vastly underestimating the toll, both financial, emotional, and mental, having a child takes on a family (and a mother!).
As I said, I can't speak for every state, but there's no good financial reasons for abortion in California at the very least, yet they occur. Emotional and mental tolls aren't enough to justify abortion so we'll have to agree to disagree on that part because it's impossible for me to see this as anything but murder, which can't be swept under the rug in favor of emotional or mental reasonings. It doesn't fly concerning ordinary murder cases and so it won't here either, as far as I am concerned.
ZeldaGirl]Having a baby myself changed my perspective on this (somewhat). Abortion is healthcare. Women need to have access to abortion. I never realized how important that fact was until I started experiencing pregnancy and the complications that can come with it. MY life matters. My existence as a [i]human being[/i] outweighs that of an unborn person who lacks a consciousness wrote:
Abortion can be healthcare, I can agree to that, and so obviously women do need access to abortion. Nobody is saying that your or any woman's life doesn't matter and you certainly do have the right to self-preservation (although the baby is not less than anyone else simply because it is currently deemed to lack a consciousness, because it is being stripped that chance to develop in the first place). So I agree with what you're saying regarding a woman's physical life, but if a woman creates a child then she has a responsibility to that life and it should be reflected in the law, so "mental" justifications cannot suffice. Financial reasoning shouldn't be adequate either, but to eliminate that excuse there needs to be better social services available for women.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done aside from restricting abortion. I think that addressing the reasons for abortion is a good place to start, such as the financial ones you cited. If other states do not have aid available for parents then that needs to change. We need to eliminate the excuses for abortion so that it only is used when absolutely necessary.
ZeldaGrl]This isn't about reducing the number of abortions wrote:truly[/i] reducing the number of abortions. If they did, they would resoundingly pass the Paid Leave Act, they would provide healthcare and widespread access to contraception, they would continue to promote social programs that provide safety nets to families, they would actually demonstrate an ounce of empathy toward an individual who has made a mistake, or who finds themselves overwhelmed by their circumstances.

This isn't about reducing the number of abortions. This is about control.
I don't know if the politicians actually care about reducing the number of abortions, but I agree that things should be done to help parents. I don't know about that "control" statement either but the end is the same; abortions need to be reduced and to get to that point fairly we need to help people so they don't need them in the first place so that proper restrictions can be put in place.

User avatar
ZeldaGirl
Posts: 17526
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Why do YOU want to know...?

#40

Post by ZeldaGirl » Sun Nov 22, 2015 7:44 pm

Emotional and mental tolls aren't enough to justify abortion so we'll have to agree to disagree on that part because it's impossible for me to see this as anything but murder, which can't be swept under the rug in favor of emotional or mental reasonings.
The fact that you and others don't view emotional or mental health of a woman as just as paramount as her physical health is a problem.

But a living, breathing woman will always take precedent over an unborn person who lack a consciousness my book - and I don't say that lightly, IRHP. I have a child. But based on my experience, an unborn child cannot be considered a "person" with the same rights as an already-born woman. You have no idea what being pregnant and having a child can do to one's physical AND mental health. And an existing person has the right to preserve those qualities for themselves.

To the "responsibility point": If a smoker get lung cancer, we don't say "oh well, you now have to live with cancer, we won't give you treatment so you have to live with your mistake - it's your responsibility." Women are no different. A mistake, a broken condom, a rape should not lead to a child a woman is not prepared to raise or even birth. A woman also has a right to say she needs to terminate a pregnancy for her health and safety.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”