States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.
This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.
Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
As a new basis for ideology, it would be interesting if the law put it clear that reproduction is about personal autonomy with no legal requirements put forth onto any individual, except that all aspects should be based on consent and free will. When ever the outcome of that consent and free will causes social or medical issues, the state ought to provide aid and support so that consenting parents and children get what they need and require.
Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally.
Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so "the science" no longer views a 32 week old fetus as a parasite to be freely disposed of, and one doesn't need to be religious to see doing so as morally bad.
So then you're left with the logical problem of where to draw the line - 8 weeks? 24 weeks? 39 weeks? And that isn't something the Constitution covers, therefore it needs to be left to the states. Removing emotion from it, it was logically correct.
> Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers.
Then I would ask that you trust people to read a whole sentence.
> States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.
The Texas GOP has nothing to do with this Supreme Court decision though. Nobody disputes that religious people tend to be against abortion, but a lot of non-religious people are as well, just from a logical standpoint.
There is no scientific basis to support the idea that a 38 week old fetus isn't viable or that it somehow only gains sentience once it passes through the birth canal. So then you have to draw a line somewhere, a line which will likely change over time as medical advancements occur - and so that is a matter for legislatures to handle.
There just isn't a constitutional basis for Roe, and all defenses of it are based on emotion not logic.
The Supreme Court's draft decision is all about states like Texas. I'm talking about the consequences which are to follow from their projected ruling.
The question I pose is whether an individual ought be able to seek medical services which are mainstream across the west in consultation with their doctor. In accordance with the projected SCOTUS ruling, the answer for states like Texas is <no>. And the debate will not be along the lines of mainstream medical empiricism.
As a democratic plurality, we ought demand that such state medical decisions be anchored on secular & empirical reasoning which groups from various religious backgrounds can understand, but this will not happen in states like Texas. What we do see in Texas is movement further away from the mainstream medical consensus and ethical standards of our western peers.
As for a constitutional basis for the right to privacy, I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I do not pretend to be fluent with constitutional law, especially not enough to denigrate arguments as being emotional and illogical on the merits of the law. If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials.
I am also not a medical professional. That is why I rely on my doctor to consult with professional bodies of science and medicine to deploy treatment in accordance with mainstream practice.
> If you are a constitutional lawyer, then it would expedite the conversation if you presented your professional credentials.
We can both save time by reading the draft opinion, which was created by the foremost Constitutional experts in the world.
In it, you'll see relying on a 50 year old decision that was loosely predicated on an unrelated right to dictate national abortion laws, is outmoded. Privacy doesn't cover the sentience of a 39 week old fetus for instance..
I actually think most people are in agreement on the issue, they just don't realize it. A tiny percentage of people support no regulations at all on abortion (ie even an elective abortion at 39 weeks with no medical necessity would be legal), and an equally tiny percentage on the other side who would even be against Plan B or abortions in the first few weeks. The problem though is then that means you have to draw a line somewhere on non-medically necessary abortions (8 weeks? 24 weeks? Something else) and that isn't something that the Roe decision is able to address, so we have to look to legislatures (state and Congress) to do their jobs.
From the beginning I have only been talking about how states will conduct themselves, and I have never pretended to have fluency in constitutional law. I follow Supreme Court opinions for the issues I care about, but that does not translate into an arrogance of denigrating the arguments of others as emotional and illogical. In accordance with that, I do not speak on whether SCOTUS is right or wrong.
You talk about "reading" things, but this is my original post:
> States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas.
> This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.
> Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.
I have talked only on the consequences which are to follow in states like TX and how state medical policy ought be conducted — in accordance with mainstream medical practice as developed by national and western consensus among professional medical and scientific bodies. This is precisely the sort of state-level debate that you allege to support, and yet are completely ignoring.
>This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.
This isn't the consensus though. For instance, at 39 weeks very few people consider the baby irrelevant in the "private decision between mom and doctor" any more than they would that of a 1 week old baby. By that point in the pregnancy, the baby has to be considered. It is no longer just the mother and doctor. If you think it is, then what magically happens in the birth canal to convey sentience?
Are we pretending there is no difference in a 3 week old zygote and a 39 week old fully viable child that has yet to exit the birth canal? Now do you see the issue? At some point, there are more than 2 beings (mom and doctor) involved in and affected by the decision..
Of course it didn't spell out religious ideology, just as people claim the civil war wasn't about slavery. If you can cloak your argument in neutral language, it's easier to dismiss the views of the opposition and not be branded a zealot.
The line drawn is the government should not be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient. Women don't endure pregnancy for almost 9 months and then decide to have an abortion a week short of birth on a whim. Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. If people are personally against abortion, don't have one, but don't force your views on others when you have no idea of the personal and painful decisions that others have to make.
>Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother.
Then there should be no problem regulating that to ensure they are only performed that late due to those defined medical problems with the fetus, or if the life of the mother is in danger, right? I think most people would agree with that.
The medical professions are already pretty well regulated in all countries. The other reply re Dr Gosnell is an obvious inflammatory distraction, and existing regulation should already apply. It does not make a logical case for new regulation, it is mere shock value and attempt to start an argument.
Regulation is another red herring. People who are against abortion are not interested in regulating doctors, they are for 100% outright bans on any form of the procedure.
We know that's false though, just through polling. The majority of Americans support abortion with restrictions. Very few people support non-medically necessary abortions at 39 weeks for instance. So to prevent that, you need regulations to draw the line somewhere, wherever that line is being up for debate.
The issue is in the definition of "unborn human". Many people don't believe that something without a brain is considered to be a living human, in the same sense that people who are braindead but with a beating heart are considered dead.
The question is, at what point in the unfertilized egg -> fertilized egg -> clump of cells -> developing fetus -> viable infant spectrum does the being take on "humanity"?
Personally I think basing this on neurological activity is a reasonable line to draw.
I’ve always thought it was odd that people feel like it’s a binary condition. It’s fine if the fetus is undelivered, or if it can’t live outside the womb, or ___.
I’m pro-choice, but my opinion is that “choice” is always at least a little evil (barring medical or other specific reasons). The longer it goes on, the more evil it gets. To that end I think it’s insane that some states are pushing to have abortion be legal up until delivery. That’s 99.99% straight up killing a baby.
I think the core of the issue comes down to viability. If a living thing needs to feed directly off of another living thing to survive, consuming their oxygen, nutrients, blood, etc. then it must be with the consent of the person being fed upon. Anything else is morally wrong. It's forcing someone to be host to another life against their will. To me that sets a pretty clear delineation that avoids the questions of whether or not that life has a heartbeat or a soul or its own thoughts. Until it can live without compromising its host those things don't matter.
I've always been very skeptical of the moral arguments from the pro-life crowd in general though, since I can't fathom a morality that says that every child conceived must be born, but after that event it's better for that child to die in the streets of exposure or sickness or hunger than for any tax money to be spent to help it grow up healthy housed and fed.
Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not. With additional medical advances that timetable might move back to essentially 0 weeks. Without formula, babies would still absolutely need someone's nutrients to survive until 6 months.
The point is, while the law needs it to be binary, I don't think it's the same on moral grounds.
And I've heard your last point repeated plenty, but one should keep in mind while there's a significant overlap between the religious and the ultra fiscally conservative the Venn diagram isn't just one big circle.
Plenty of studies have found that religious people donate more to charities including nonreligious causes. There's also this: "A recent Barna Group survey found that 5 percent of practicing U.S. Christians – compared to 2 percent of all U.S. adults – have adopted children"
In my experience, if I found myself without a proverbial shirt on my back, I'd either go to a very religious person's house or someone that's quite (but not ultra) wealthy.
> Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not.
No need to try and force a binary where it can/should be avoided. The idea would be that if you seek an abortion the doctor will determine if the fetus can be removed alive instead. If it can, you can sign it over to the state, have it removed, and be on your way. The doctors will do their best to keep it alive, but certainly some of them wont make it. That happens all the time to babies who were wanted and who had a natural birth.
If the doctor determines that survival of the fetus isn't likely they can remove it without attempting to keep it alive. Like all medical decisions it would need to be at the discretion of the medical professional taking into account the unique conditions of those under his care. Needing formula isn't an issue since we have formula. Just like we have life support machines, incubators, medications, etc.
As for donating to charity, that's firstly a hugely inefficient way to get help to people, but more importantly it does not provide equal access to help either. It allows people to give primarily to their in-group, or provide aid only to people they want to support, regardless of how many others are in much greater need. Even if the giver isn't deliberately prioritizing anything over the level of need, aid is certain to end up inequality distributed with the charities that can advertise better or that are easier to access getting more funds.
Charitable giving is nice, but it's clearly no substitute for a national system that protects and provides for everyone, everywhere.
Even being born a few weeks early leads to significantly worse outcomes - the birthing ward at the hospital where my daughter was born had posters up warning of it. I thought that was weird because...you know, you're already there, but apparently it used to be fairly common for doctors to schedule induced labor earlier than they should have and for people to try to deliver earlier as it'd be easier on them.
When you get down to 26 weeks things get dire:
>In one study of 241 children born before 26 weeks' gestation the following was found:
22% severe disability (eg cerebral palsy + not walking, low cognitive scores, blindness, profound deafness)
24% moderate disability (eg cerebral palsy + walking, IQ/cognitive scores in the special needs range, lesser degree of visual or hearing impairment)
34% mild disability (defined as low IQ/cognitive score, squint, requiring glasses)
20% no problems.
Any time you bring an unwanted child into the world there are going to be higher risks of the baby's life being ruined. Either the parents keep it, which is clearly going to lead to bad outcomes or it goes into foster care which increases the odds the child will be abused, be arrested, have mental/developmental issues, and become homeless, while also being less likely to complete high school, far less likely to have postsecondary education, less likely to be successful in their careers, etc.
Still, some people feel its better for a child to be born into suffering than to never be born at all.
I like Canada's approach: it's not under the purview of law, it's a matter between patient and doctor. Which is, ironically enough, what 75% of Americans agree with. But politicians want wedge issues, so here we are, at eachother's throats again.
California recently had a bill put forward that potentially may have legalized killing babies even shortly after birth. Whether that was by accident or design is anyone's guess, and it was changed after there was an uproar.
>Gilbert, posing a hypothetical and rare scenario, asked whether a woman that “is about to give birth” and “dilating” could request an abortion and be certified by a physician “if he indicated it would impair the mental health of a woman.” After hesitation, Tran responded her bill “would allow that.”
Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.
Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization.
Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
>and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it not?
But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger?
You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority.
I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.
You're ignoring my point in favor of what you consider to be a scissor statement. You can flog to continue a highly polarized, politically intractable conversation, but it's not getting us anywhere good. I didn't take any position other than: I don't think that legislators should be making blanket policies on an issue that should be a joint decision of doctor and patient. What happened is that you ignored my position, and claimed that I took the position you hate. I did not take your hated position. I maintain that such decisions should be between doctor and patient.
You have me mixed up with a different poster I suppose. I don't hate any position on the subject. I'm not religious and I'm not for a complete ban on abortions. I simply pointed out that your original claim that a "super majority of people" support no regulations on abortion, falls apart when you ask if they support elective abortions at 39 weeks. Almost nobody supports that, which means by definition, most people support some regulations on abortions.
So then logically that leaves us needing to draw the line somewhere with regulations. Just because a particular doctor[1] might be more than happy to perform something most people see as grotesque, doesn't mean society should just allow it.
> Girl age 15, accompanied by relative (1998): said to have told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion once inside the practice. Gosnell allegedly got upset, ripped off the patient's clothing and forcibly restrained her. The patient later stated that Gosnell told her: "This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter." She regained consciousness twelve hours later at her aunt's home, the abortion having been completed against her will.
Yeah, we don't need anti-abortion laws to make sure guys like this see justice, as he's guilty of an entire pantheon of medical malpractice.
> Patients given labor- and delivery-inducing drugs during the day, then left waiting until late evening for Gosnell to attend or for surgery.[73] Many gave birth during the day as a result, and employees testified "it was standard procedure for women to deliver fetuses – and viable babies – into toilets" while waiting for his arrival.
> Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them (or ensuring their death).
See, that's not even an abortion by any stretch of the imagination. Those are live births followed up by infanticide. No need for anti-abortion laws.
I guess to understand the position I would need to understand what reasoning would justify an abortion at 39 weeks where the life of the mother wasn't in danger and there was no permanent medical issues with the child. I'm specifically referring to regulations on elective abortions that late in term, what is the argument against that?
Nobody seems to want to answer the question, which is quite telling actually.
> Nobody seems to want to answer the question, which is quite telling actually.
You're still missing the very important context of the original comment you replied to, so I'll self-quote:
> Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
You're ignoring this, and going straight back to debating minutae, and using a completely ludicrous case that (a) nobody wants to be legal and (b) is already totally illegal without any kind of abortion law.
> I guess to understand the position I would need to understand what reasoning would justify an abortion at 39 weeks
See, you keep claiming that I'm in support of an abortion at 39 weeks. I didn't take that position, did I? Look to Canada, whose Supreme Court ruled that this is a matter between doctor and patient. But, doctors are highly regulated with regards to their behavior and ethics, and gosh, they aren't running around murdering babies like the example you keep trotting out, are they?
>Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.
Obviously "a jungle with no people" is ridiculous hyperbole. They've tried a few minor things without reforming the cultural issues that have contributed to the decline in births. What difference does it make if the people they bring in aren't ethnicity Japanese? Are you concerned that the Japanese will die out like an endangered species? On a long enough timeline, all ethnicities are doomed, but there's no genuine concern that that will happen to the japanese any time soon.
Yes and it's the natural extension of modern lifestyle. The invariant is that for as long as there's kids, they are taken care of, and it still holds true for "jungles". How many humans do you even need?
Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof.
Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.
Anecdotally, I know someone who is pro-life and he and his wife just had their first baby via IVF. The principles most apply to others seem to become flexible once it affects them personally.
I would agree that some people are inconsistent, but I don't think that overturns their arguments. Outright murderers often think murder is wrong even though they committed that crime. Also on IVF some simply haven't thought through their principles in regard to it or have emotional reasons that make it hard for them to apply their own principles.
The United State’s abortion laws are far more lax than most first world countries. Many don’t even have at-will abortions, and most are limited to something like 12 weeks - not almost double that.
What countries like Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, Germany, France, Italy, South Korea have is the ability to seek abortion in consultation with their doctor. With the loss of federal protection, what the United States has in one of their most populous states is criminal and civil liability for doctors.
In this case we are talking about medical consensus across the west. Of course one can always argue about the inadequacy of medical consensus with your doctor, especially if your instincts tell you that you're about to happen upon intellectual gold.
> The Nazis had a medical consensus to euthanize undesirable people.
The allies of America do not deserve to be denigrated as Nazis. American scientists and doctors should be proud to consult with their peers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Korea, or the various EU nations such as Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands.
Abortion is absolutely an issue of personal autonomy which deserves Constitutional protection. I hope this ruling can help serve as an impetus for reform. We really need a Constitutional Convention, but an amendment would be progress.
> That is refreshing as most people screaming my body my choice were some of the first demanding forced vaccinations.
because the two issues are not even remotely linked.
You get vaccinated for the community, it's a "bigger than you" problem, it's for "the greater good".
Women that want to get an abortion most of the time didn't want the baby they are carrying, they were forced to.
So it's reversed: if someone forced you to get COVID using violence but the supreme court blocked you from getting the vaccine, it would be right to scream "my body my choice".
You're the first person I ever heard use that argument. It's usually about the life of the potential child, not about society at all.
I'm not sure I get the argument either. Is the danger that God grabs his ban hammer and stomps western society because a woman living as part of that society decided to end a pregnancy?
Fwiw: I was against a vaccination requirement for COVID-19, but categorically denying that it might be necessary for another virus is a very dangerous worldview. It's not necessarily a choice an individual can do, because herd immunity is a thing and vaccinations usually don't make you immune to a virus, it usually just improves the odds your immune system has against it.
Its not exactly a literal statement. Murder in the general sense is bad for society no? The people that use the phrase murdering a baby, think they are stopping it for the betterment of mankind. It's the same logic that makes people push religion.
They think you and the world will be better for it. Its certainly not my argument
>Is the danger that God grabs his ban hammer and stomps western society because a woman living as part of that society decided to end a pregnancy?
Being scared of the ban hammer is history for the last 300 years of Catholicism.
>No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.
>Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate
Despite the possibility of second thoughts, this is still very worrying for constitutional rights in general. The chances of other important cases for individual rights like Griswold v. Connecticut being overturned just increased greatly.
Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?
The court has rapidly given itself over to partisanship in the last few years. That framework lends understanding to the seeming contradiction in their decisions.
Sure that may be the case but there is still some argument applied to both decisions. What's the main difference between one vs. the other that makes decision to get a medical procedure not legal but decision to not wear a mask legal?
Well, not everyone sees abortion as merely a medical procedure. The rights of the fetus and the father are the major concerns. How to balance these is, of course, controversial.
Similar issues exist about masks too. (e.g. concerns of immunocompromised people)
Your understanding of the mask cases is incorrect.
There is no "right not to mask". A right not to mask would mean that such a law would not be enforceable. But the court found no such right. It simply found that the executive was interpreting a statute incorrectly.
Specifically, the Biden administration believed that a piece of legislation gave them the authority to mandate masks in certain workplaces. The court disagreed except for in the case of medical facilities. In particular, the court said nothing about what would happen if, hypothetically, Congress were to pass a law clarifying that OSHA does indeed have the authority to mandate masking.
The SCOTUS decisions regarding masking/vaccines were not cases of constitutional law or individual rights. Rather, SCOTUS was simply ruling on the meaning of a statute passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive. Individual constitutional rights were not in play.
By contrast, Roe v Wade establishes a constitutional right to abortion. What this means is that even if Congress or a state passed a law outlawing abortion, that law would not be enforceable unless SCOTUS overturned Roe.
I don't think there is a single justice on the court who believes that the constitution provides a right not to mask. The court is hopelessly political, and on hot-button issues it's best to think about the court reasoning backward from decisions rather than forward for law, but "a constitutional right not to mask" is not how the conservative justices currently on the court would ever go about justifying striking down a mask policy.
Comparing the mask/vaccine decisions to the Roe decision doesn't make much sense.
They ruled that the government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks. The parallel would be deciding that the government doesn't have the right to force people to get abortions - which, if it ever came to that, I'm pretty sure the court would in fact rule.
>> the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask
> They ruled that the government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks.
Both of these statements are super false.
The court ruled that one particular piece of legislation does not give the executive branch the authority to force certain employers to have and enforce a rule that their employees, while in the workplace, must be masked or vaccinated.
There is NO "individual right to not mask" involved here. It's a ruling about the authority of the executive branch given the contents of a law passed by the legislature. That's all.
In particular,
1. The businesses effected by the ruling are of course free to none-the-less mandate masking without a federal mandate. I.e., there is no right for individuals not to mask.
2. If Congress were to pass a new law explicitly giving OSHA authority to mandate masks in workplaces, the court's reasoning in Nat'l Federation of Businesses v. DoL would be wholly irrelevant to that new piece of legislation.
3. Mask mandates in non-OSHA contexts -- eg federal buildings -- are not effected by either scotus ruling.
4. Biden v Missouri, decided by the same court at the same time, left vaccine mandates in place for healthcare facilities.
Neither of the SCOTUS decisions have anything to do with masking as an individual right, and they certainly don't rule that "government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks". All they say is that one particular law, as written, doesn't give the Executive the authority to mandate that employers mandate masks/vaccines in certain workplaces.
If the court had found a reading of the constitution that enshrined a right not to mask that somehow didn't create a penumbra within which many other individual rights (including abortion) lived, that would be... a rather incredible exercise in bullshitting. But that's not what happened.
Regardless, other comments here are accurate: at least on certain issues the supreme court is hopelessly politicized.
Search for "supreme court mask mandate" gives me articles how the court is sending mixed messages and in general has not given a clear guideline about the issue. The non-legal explanation seem to be that they simply don't know if mask mandates are good or bad, and within or outside the scope of the federal government authority. They did reject one federal law that required "large businesses" to have vaccination/mask mandates, but the same ruling allowed a similar federal law to be put on medical care facilities.
They have not said if states can impose such restrictions, nor if large companies can decide for themselves if they want to have such restrictions, and I am unsure under what paragraph the distinction between health care worker and worker of a large businesses is defined. It is possible that health care workers are defined as a "critical role" or something that allows for additional restrictions.
"My body my choice" always was a bad justification because you obviously have to look at the interest of the child too if you count it as human life as many do. If you ask around you don't find too many people that wish they were aborted. The same logic can apply to wearing masks because it can affect other people aside yourself. But many argue here that the responsibility to protect yourself with masks is on those that want this protection but in case of abortions the child cannot defend itself or its rights.
To be honest I believe part of the problem is self-inflicted. Many conservatives had already made their peace with the issue and some media personalities unnecessarily picked up the topic and some people made a fool of themselves in a way so that the opposition only needed to show around their behavior to garner more supporters against abortion. It is probably naive to believe that the argument is about ethics instead of partisanship at this point.
I am for legal abortions and against mandatory masking (most of the time, there are situations where wearing a mask is just sensible), but I don't see these topics intersecting very much. Abortions will happen if they are legal or not. To minimize suffering a legal and medical responsible way is required.
But it is still an ethical question to allow it or not and intrinsic to almost all ethical considerations is that there is no clear right or wrong so I don't see a solution if either a vast majority supports it or not or opposing political factions collaborate on the issue.
> If you ask around you don't find too many people that wish they were aborted
but if you asked them when the abortion was possible they wouldn't even understand the question, while people understand what wearing or not wearing a mask means, usually!
The baby is not a citizen, meaning they haven't the same rights of adult people because they also have much less responsibilities, given their status.
It's completely obvious, I don't ask my cats if they want to get vaccinated, I just do it, because they have no way to decide on the matter.
I may agree but some others have the opinion that even a fetus already has rights. It is an ideological position but so is the sanctity of human life in general.
>The baby is not a citizen, meaning they haven't the same rights of adult people because they also have much less responsibilities, given their status.
US law protects the lives of non-citizens as well, not sure how that is relevant. And their argument would be what is the difference between a 38 week old fetus and 2 day old baby? What magical occurrence happens in the birth canal that transforms it from non-human to human? Obviously, science is on their side. So then the courts have to decide where do you draw the line? 8 weeks? 38 weeks? That isn't covered by the Constitution, so leaving it up to the states (or Congress) is the correct decision.
Because science says the fetus is a developing human being and abortion destroys (or in the words of pro-life people "kills") it, while a mask is a piece of cloth worn on the face.
Not sure this makes much of a difference. With the hurdles put in place by many state legislatures, it's kind of been in "states rights" territory for some time now.
Most of the those hurdles have been being shot down as unconstitutional until now.
The loss of roe v wade could cause us to lose a lot of other rights too. Gay marriage may be next on the chopping block.
I don't have strong opinions about roe or gay marriage. I do have strong opinions against kritarchy. Right or wrong, I don't like the idea of the Yale law school sharia council overriding the will of the electorate. It may have worked for you in recent history, but as they say, "past performance is not indicative of future results."
While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years. Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
---
U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to trend upward, now at 70% -- a new high in Gallup's trend since 1996. This latest figure marks an increase of 10 percentage points since 2015
Maybe, but that could change. Most people don't have strongly-held opinions on these things. The political decisions which allowed these precede the popular support.
Elite lawyers may be cleverer than the peasants, but that does not make them righteous or just. As I've already written, just because the court had taken a leftward tack in the recent past does not guarantee that it will continue to do so. Left or right, it would be best not to have that much power in so few hands.
I'm not exactly advocating for the power SCOTUS has, there are a whole host of things like the case you pointed out. I speaking more in principle that "mob rule" doesn't end well for those not in the mob
You say "just" but the fact is that no matter where in the country you are, being an American citizen should guarantee a person certain rights, such as access to critical medical care, or not being forced to give birth to your rapist's child. Several states have already demonstrated that they don't want their population to have those rights and even before this women's lives were endangered by their attempts to close clinics and limit their reproductive freedoms.
What we're bound to end up with are entire states of second class citizens who don't have the rights and protections of the rest of the nation. Where traveling within the country puts some of your most basic freedoms in question every time you cross a state border. Where your legal actions in one state can get you arrested or charged with a crime in another. There are very good reasons to have federal laws to keep a baseline standard of what rights and freedoms an American citizen has.
That this right has been overturned at a federal level will absolutely cause more suffering than it prevents. Even in those states where people will now be forced to live under religious law abortion will continue to take place just as it always has. The wealthy will simply fly to where it's accessible with little risk and the poor will resort to more dangerous methods just as they did before the right to seek an abortion was protected by federal law.
> Fortunately our nation is founded on a constitution and rule of law so that what "should" and "shouldn't" can be codified appropriately by the people.
The governing and electoral structure is very much engineered to prevent “the people” from having an effective voice is codifying should and shouldn't, despite the occasional mouthing of platitudes relating to popular sovereignty and democratic rule by elites.
> so that what "should" and "shouldn't" can be codified appropriately by the people.
Sadly that's been repeatedly shown to be false. What we actually have is a system where the average person has zero influence on policy and a very small number of very wealthy people dictate what "should" and "shouldn't" be. The vast majority of Americans support the right to an abortion and yet here we have a small number of people taking that right from them.
This gets really messy if the service is simply unavailable for whatever reason. If it's your right then should the government get involved in coercion? Mandates? If it's unaffordable, price controls?
Calling a service a right is fraught with moral hazards.
Right, but the argument from many is that it isn’t just your body.
And if I should have the right to do what I want with my body, why aren’t all drugs legalized? Why can’t I legally kill myself? You’re probably saying “that should be legal!” But the Supreme Court has never made that leap, even though they did in the case of abortion.
that means that USA is not a "great civilized country", "a great democracy", "the land of the free", but a place that depending on where you were born or actually reside, can look much more like North Korea.
That's, of course, a valid concern. But IMO, that doesn't justify late-stage abortion. The main argument would be the ubiquity of morning-after pills and pregnancy tests.
Also, it is noteworthy that only a very small fraction of abortions are done because of rape. [1]
Don't most people hold that "two wrongs don't make a right"? In Hindu view abortion no matter the reason, except to save the mother's life, incurs strong negative karma.
Everyone agrees that rape is wrong, whereas ~80% of the US believes that abortion is okay under some circumstances (~30% under ANY circumstance).
The reality is that this won't stop abortion, just safe abortions, so now we are going to have rape victims attempting to end their daily reminder of their rape, end up with a crooked back-alley doc butchering them. Many would consider that a wrong as well.
If abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, which is what the pro-life side asserts, there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. Its important to understand where opponents of your view are coming from otherwise there will be a communication disconnect which helps noone.
I'm aware that many pro-life proponents anchor their beliefs in the idea life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, but many (more?) people believe differently. I'm sympathetic to the concept that "abortion is murder" and anyone with that viewpoint should be 100% on board for doing everything we can to reduce the need for abortion, such as robust sex-education starting at an appropriate age (12 or 13), availability of contraception and counseling to discuss concerns, ... (these measures reduced abortions in Colorado). Unfortunately, many pro-lifers are also against contraception and sex education, and other measures which would reduce the need for abortions, which muddies their underlying intentions, and leads many to believe that their primary concern has more to do with controlling women and inflicting their religious beliefs on others.
If we assume there is an underlying intention, maybe we shouldn't assume that the anchor of their beliefs is in the idea that life begins at conception. The question I would ask is what outcomes they want to have and what negative outcomes they want to avoid. A lot of religious views seems to me to be anchor to the old view that children only life support is their family, and thus the most critical aspect is the focus on a core family that guaranties that the child will survive. There also seems to be a bit focus on inheritance and family lines, issues which is not trivial but significant less than when much of those religious text was written.
> The reality is that this won't stop abortion, just safe abortions
I think that's probably incorrect. People respond to incentives.
The evidence that I know of for that assertion comes from studies which are poorly done and biased. The methodology is to compare the rate of the abortion in places with different legal frameworks for it. The main problem is that it is hard to estimate the prevalence of an illegal activity.
Additionally, some of the places they put in the "not legal" category tend to be poor places in which rule of law is much less important than the US. (So you can't expect similar laws to have similar effects)
Many states have already decided they don't care how many women are forced to give birth to their rapists children or die due to medical problems surrounding their pregnancy. Even before this ruling there are places where women's lives have been endangered because accessible clinics were forced to close.
No matter what state you are in, being an American citizen should guarantee you certain rights. Not being forced to give birth, and having access to healthcare should be among those rights. It's terrible that we've moved farther from that as a nation.
> Many states have already decided they don't care how many women are forced to give birth to their rapists children or die due to medical problems surrounding their pregnancy.
I sympathize with the concern about dignity of rape victims, but the second part of your assertion is incorrect: "At present, all states allow the procedure to preserve the life and health of the mother". [1] (That includes even the Texas law [2])
[2]: "The act contains exceptions in the case of medical emergency, such as if the mother is at risk of death or severe irreversible bodily harm." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act)
Not all laws have included such provisions (see for example BMJ 2003;327:1009 which was passed and signed by Bush), and those that do are so vague that it does things like leave doctors at great risk of getting their lives ruined for doing what they think is right for their patient or would make procedures that are medically necessary to save the life of the mother illegal any time it wasn't also an active and immediate emergency (such as in this bill: https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2116/id/1846191)
It turns out when lawmakers have even bothered at all to play lip service to protecting the lives of pregnant women they still haven't done a very good job actually making sure they are protected.
You can go looking at all the laws states have tried to pass over the years that didn't protect the life of the mother or would have forced her to give birth to her rapist's child. You can also look at all the laws which would have made doctors risk their freedom and security for performing a medical procedure that they felt was needed.
You could do that, but I recommend saving some time and just looking at the states which have closed clinics and forced out providers:
How many women do you think exist in those states who needed help, but didn't live within driving distance to the one provider in the state and can't afford to take several days off work to travel to get one in another. How many were too busy dying to start booking plane tickets and hotel rooms so they can get the emergency procedure done?
I think some states have been making their position on this pretty clear.
He asked which states "don't care how many women are forced to give birth to their rapists children or die due to medical problems surrounding their pregnancy."
In return I not only told him how to identify other, but gave him a list of six which have pressured providers to close to the point where currently only one remains in the entire state. States who care about how many women can't get access to a life saving abortion don't try to make it impossible for women to get the care they need.
Both major parties are guilty of it and people keep electing the divisive politicians that use issues like abortion to create division but that routinely get involved in proxy wars that result in the deaths of innocent children.
The argument that antiabortionists make is that it's murder. You can be against something without personally caring about the victim. If Bill kills average Joe down the street, I may not care about Joe personally, but I am concerned about him getting killed.
Abortionists and antiabortionists make arguments that work in their echo chambers , without ever understanding what the other side thinks.
It's a great day for rapists and for people who like seeing young females have illegal abortions and endanger their lives ("oh they deserve it, those ungodly servants of satan").
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
And, to editorialize: news orgs, your favorite political blogs, and even Twitter will have better commentary than HN.
Look at the discussion that happens in response to a story like this. I don't see any novel or "curious" conversation, not to say there are not a lot of valid arguments, but they are old and don't really bring anything to the site. If HN was just this sort of polarizing topic, it would lose its appeal pretty fast.
I don't actually know what the [flagged] tag adds to the story, though I think it's the right policy to let it play out so people can have their say while "burying" it so it doesn't dominate the front page and attract too much attention.
I prefer to downvote the discussion since I'd estimate 80% of flagged but highly upvoted threads I've read in my time on hackernews have actually been ok.
Yikes. Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions. Do you know how unwanted children are treated? I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for children who need a court appointed advocate, and I support abortion fully having seen the alternative suffering, not to mention anti abortion proponents supporting life right up until birth, and then it’s “good luck champ, this is America, find those bootstraps.” Ask your anti abortion proponent how many unwanted children they’ve fostered or adopted.
Anti abortion in America isn’t about pro life, it’s about giving a certain political subset control over womens’ reproductive rights.
Edit: this will also accelerate women obtaining permanent birth control (a tubal ligation or a bisalp, which is 100% covered by the ACA as preventive care) who are sitting in the fence or have firmly decided in being child free. Can’t take chances if you could be stuck with a child you didn’t want for 18 years.
> Preventing abortions brings unwanted children into the world and pushes abortion underground, where they’ll just be less safe abortions.
If someone believes that abortion is killing an innocent human being, and thus immoral worthy of being illegal, this line of argument won't do anything. It would be like saying, "if we ban murder for hire that will push all of the hitmen under ground!". I understand you don't believe that is what abortion is, but I think if you look at it from the pro-life point of view it will show why this line of reasoning doesn't seem convincing.
> Do you know how unwanted children are treated? I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for children who need a court appointed advocate, and I support abortion fully having seen the alternative suffering, not to mention anti abortion proponents supporting life right up until birth, and then it’s “good luck champ, this is America, find those bootstraps.”
This isn't an argument for abortion, its an argument for better child care services and child protection. Most pro-lifers are very supportive of giving support to children and parents who are in tough situations, just recently a local community raised a large amount of money and materials to provide support.
> Anti abortion in America isn’t about pro life, it’s about giving a certain political subset control over womens’ reproductive rights.
This is a false characterization. The difference in view between pro-life and pro-choice is not "womans rights vs. no womans rights" or something like that, its a difference philosophical and moral view of what the unborn /are/.
Does what I say make sense? Please let me know if you need clarifications, I am typing quickly and can't proof read as much as I would like to.
What you say makes sense, and I believe it’s a fundamental gap that can’t be closed. I simply cannot put myself in the shoes and mental model of someone who is pro life (and I’ve tried; otherwise how can I have a reasonable debate with the opposition), and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. Therefore, both sides are to remain in tension until a point comes where democracy overrides through cohort turnover [1] (but at a cost of suffering between now and then).
> I believe it’s a fundamental gap that can’t be closed.
For you, maybe, but not for all. Many/most people believe that there should be _at least_ /some/ restrictions on abortion (abortion/infanticide at 9 months is not supported by the average voter, for example). The gap might not be closeable /in principle/, but for many people who don't think everything through with a first-principles approach there are things they are willing to change on.
I can fully understand why they take the pro-life point of view, and it's wrong. The end result of a pro-life view is what you see happening in this thread: People arguing that birth control should be made illegal. They want to erode freedom of individuals to decide for themselves in favor of their own religious zeal.
As toomuchtodo has said, the gap has become impossible to bridge, mainly because any concessions to pro-life individuals simply results in demands for further concessions until the above becomes true.
Obviously yes. If you don't want children, or can't afford a child, or aren't fit to be a parent it's far far better if you don't give birth to a child in the first place.
By this logic, the production of hypothetical future people should be maximized right? Every man and woman on earth should be spending every moment attempting to create more children in this world.
Parents who don’t want to be parents should be able to elect not to be parents. Forcing them to have children they don’t want and won’t want to or be able to provide for does a disservice to everyone. I’m not going to parrot out bodily autonomy, it wouldn’t matter anyway to anti abortionists; they have their belief system, and it is rigid (religion, politics, whatever). The battle is won on other fronts (robust access to Plan B and abortion pills, logistical networks to get those who need an abortion to medical providers).
Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples, ...? After all, none of those are guaranteed by the constitution either. What "rights" do you enjoy that aren't expressly guaranteed in the constitution that others might want to let states legislate away from you?
> Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples, ...?
The people that have been pushing against Roe have pushed for all of those on the same basis,
and the decisions on all of those were the underpinnings of Roe. So, yes, and soon.
The current Court seems to really want to distinguish closely-marriage-related rights from it's attack on Roe, so I’d see contraceptive rights of unmarried individuals and pre- and extra-marital sex as the most likely next successful targets from the list.
This is all I can imagine we'll end up with. Some states are going to force religious laws on their population and others will not. People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states under religious law will continue to decline.
The same way states that push abstinence only sex-ed see higher rates of teenage pregnancy those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.
> People will flee to states that don't oppress them and those states will continue to decline.
People with resources will be able to evade the bans relatively easily or flee if they can't
Those with fewer resources will be less able to leave.
> those states that push fundamentalist religious law on the people will see more suffering and death, higher rates of poverty and violence, etc.
And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure.
> And they'll continue to be overrepresented in Congress and maintain federal funding formulas that extract money from successful states to subsidize themselves on account of their failure.
Maybe this is something that will have to change. It all does risk bringing us closer to going back to when we were "these untied states" instead of "the untied states" though.
> those states under religious law will continue to decline.
Is there any evidence for this? I've met many people on this very site who live in "states under religious law" and the state is prosperous, with the added benefits of freedom and liberty compared to other states.
> Should states also be allowed to legislate contraceptives, premarital sex, sex between same sex couples
That's up to the supreme court and unwinding Roe is part of the process of rolling those back as well. They didn't go to all that trouble to pack the court with right wing ideologues for nothing.
The constitution also has no right to privacy, but I'm willing to bet given that you're posting on a throwaway account that you believe privacy is rather important. Or would you be okay with the Supreme Court completely eroding all privacy laws because it doesn't exist in the constitution?
The right to abortion is something that was ruled as something between a woman and her doctor to decide. Not the federal government, and not state agencies. Frankly there are already plenty of laws and guidance in place that the drum beating against Roe v Wade is purely powered by hysteria and not facts or logic.
I think it has that, actually. That's generally how the Fourth Amendment is interpreted. [1] Interestingly, the right to privacy was the main argument in the Roe v. Wade decision.
[2]
Also, to your credit, the concept of unenumerated rights [3] supports your argument. Hamilton (the favourite founding father among the left-wingers) actually opposed the Bill of Rights because "he feared it might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had". [4]
Well dude, you obviously don't care who sees it, because you have the PC opinion. I'm also pro womens right to choose, but I'm not religious, and I don't believe that I should be forcing my beliefs on highly Christian states that I've never been to if they want to do things differently. But you see, THAT'S not PC, hence why I have no choice but to use a throwaway.
I don’t think any person should mandate any person what to do with their body. This would not have been any less wrong if it was done entirely by women. Women don't have any more right to control other women's bodies than men do.
If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion. Only a woman can truly understand what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, to bring a new life into being. A man might have a possessive, proprietary attitude about it, but it's a removed and intellectual understanding at best. A woman understands it from her gut, from her body.
To hear men pontificating about how women should behave is ludicrous, and sad.
> If you're a man, you have no right to have an opinion about abortion.
Yeah, no.
The roles of men and women in reproduction are different, but that doesn't exclude either one from the conversation.
The real issue is that before being born, the would-be child is literally feeding on the mother like a parasite. No one should be forced to endure that against their will. That needs to be a voluntary act of sacrifice on the part of the mother. I don't think we'll have a real solution to any part of the abortion debate until we have artificial wombs where we can remove the burden from the unwilling mother entirely. That still won't satisfy the religious extremists who will still rage against miscarriages and birth control and 'women doing things we don't like', but it would solve the problem of fathers who want their child to live while mothers refuse to carry it.
That makes no sense at all. People can have consensual sex without wanting a child and they can change their mind about wanting a child after having consensual sex. I'm curious if you apply the same argument when the mother wants a child and the father does not. What should happen to the child in that situation?
The abortion debate should not have anything to do with whether a child will be born or not. The right to an abortion is part of the right to fully control your own body. That right should be absolute and inalienable unless waived voluntarily.
I'm curious if you apply the same argument when the mother wants a child and the father does not. What should happen to the child in that situation?
if it was consensual then the case is the same. both parents are responsible for the child they conceived. there is no option to change their mind later.
but if the father was raped, it gets more tricky. i haven't thought this through, but effectively the burden of whatever choice is made is carried by the mother, which means, if there is doubt then the mother should be allowed to keep the child because we should choose what has the least negative consequences for everyone involved.
but if the father can prove that he was raped then the mother should loose the right to her child.
the only remaining challenge is if the father was raped but neither wants the child. based on the above, abortion should not be allowed because the mother consented to get pregnant.
the mother could of course claim that she was raped, but assuming she doesn't, then what?
i don't know...
if you made the decision to create a new life then you have to follow through with the consequences.
if that's not what you wanted, you should have used protection.
the problem with the abortion debate is that both sides are in extreme corners and neither side is willing to approach the other.
the problem is also, trying to find a legal definition for the consensus.
what about a woman that believes to be raped, but can't prove it? should she be allowed to abort? i believe yes.
but we can only do that if we make abortion legal and the decision an entirely moral one. you can't legislate morality. with any legislation there will be corner cases with an unjust outcome.
all we can do is create better conditions for pregnant women so that they may be more comfortable carrying a baby that they otherwise would not want.
This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor.
Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.