Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[chipbennett]

How many of these unwanted kids will INGO members adapt?

In what way is that question, or its answer, relevant to the discussion?

 

[chipbennett]

I think he might be getting at how RvW was decided, that they inferred a right to privacy, and under that right they had a right to seek an abortion. So what happens to the right to privacy now that RvW is overturned? It wasn't rejected as far as I can see, on the grounds that there is no such right to privacy. I didn't read all of the decision, but I don't think it addressed that part either way. But mostly, among other things, on the basis on the 10th amendment, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved for the States. Since the constitution doesn't mention abortion, it goes to the states to decide.

That could be. But if the right to privacy is intended to be enumerated in the constitution, then it should be added, rather than merely found in the penumbras.

 

[chipbennett]

Everybody wants other people not to have an abortion, nobody wants to pick up the kids they don't want.

In over 98% of abortions, the relevant admonition is: stop conceiving unwanted kids.

 

[jamil]

So, 'your truth', no dispute of the accuracy of my statement. Got it

Well, no. It's an opinion. I said, in my view. I never said you weren't welcome to your view. Logically, "best available" == "least worst". I wasn't making a logical statement when I say least worst. I'm conveying the idea that I don't trust politicians who want to be in charge. In my view--an opinion--I have a healthy distrust for politicians. You may trust or not trust according to your own believes and values. I don't feel I'm better than you for having that opinion. I don't feel I'm any worse for having it either.

 

[chipbennett]

Sure, there are good people out there, but how many would step up to deal with the adaption bullcrap already in place?

All the people are against abortion, but the children they saved have always been some else's problem, not yours.

I think you will find ample common ground among INGOers on the matter of removing bureaucracy, red tape, and needless expense - whether with respect to fostering, adoption, or otherwise. We have way too much government, adversely impacting the lives of many.

 

[ljk]

Why do you go personal? I have ideas for solutions. The only idea you seem to have is killing them…

Your solutions is to expect the speed reform of The Government to solve the problems with the children without parents. Don't count the ones up and coming, we can't even help the ones we already have now.

Good luck with the government to change for the good, you will need lots of it.

The only solution you are offering is to go on killing them at a prodigious rate. That also does not solve the problem nor 'help these babies'

By your lights the Nazis were 'helping' the Jews, and I believe their leader did indeed claim he was providing a 'solution'

I'm not the holier than thou either.

And your anology is off, the Jews didn't want the Nazis, they wanted to be left alone, but the Nazi's wouldn't.
It's more like the women whom wanted to have abortions want the ___________ to leave them alone, but the _______ wouldn't.

You want more unwanted babies, why don't you go take care of them, the more the merrier.

 

[chipbennett]

Your solutions is to expect the speed reform of The Government to solve the problems with the children without parents. Don't count the ones up and coming, we can't even help the ones we already have now.

Good luck with the government to change for the good, you will need lots of it.





I'm not the holier than thou either.

And your anology is off, the Jews didn't want the Nazis, they wanted to be left alone, but the Nazi's wouldn't.
It's more like the women whom wanted to have abortions want the ___________ to leave them alone, but the _______ wouldn't.

You want more unwanted babies, why don't you go take care of them, the more the merrier.

You want fewer unwanted babies, stop engaging in the single action that results in unwanted babies.

 

[jamil]

I think you will find ample common ground among INGOers on the matter of removing bureaucracy, red tape, and needless expense - whether with respect to fostering, adoption, or otherwise. We have way too much government, adversely impacting the lives of many.

I think some advocated things like enforcing responsibility by jailing irresponsible parents at some point. CPS has too much power as it is. I'd really like to scale that down. I think the power they wield now is not helping as much as hurting. And that includes the foster system.

 

[jamil]

You want fewer unwanted babies, stop engaging in the single action that results in unwanted babies.

Again, it's easy to say that and call it a day. But we have to live in THIS world. I don't think you guys have the political capital to make the world into what you want it to be. Especially with it turning to **** as it is. So work to get what you can in the world that is.

 

[Twangbanger]

I think he might be getting at how RvW was decided, that they inferred a right to privacy, and under that right they had a right to seek an abortion. So what happens to the right to privacy now that RvW is overturned? It wasn't rejected as far as I can see, on the grounds that there is no such right to privacy. I didn't read all of the decision, but I don't think it addressed that part either way. But mostly, among other things, on the basis on the 10th amendment, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved for the States. Since the constitution doesn't mention abortion, it goes to the states to decide.

I have wondered about this a long time. The SC seems to have authored a number of business-friendly decisions which seem to imply there is no enforceable "right to privacy," at least where the issue of your public data on the internet and things like that are concerned. So that always seemed incongruous with RvW, and it would seem that conflict has been removed with the latest decision.

Drones are an interest of mine, and I've been amazed the law won't go farther in protecting people's privacy in being spied on by things flying in the air around their property. The FAA injunctions about not interfering with "piloted flight" seem to be stronger than any sort of constitutional concerns with privacy.

Prior to last week, I always thought it would be a super-interesting test of RvW, for pro-life groups to fly drones over clinics, taking detailed photos of womens' faces as they entered, then publishing the information on the internet. While I think such an action would be a dick move, if such a case could have been "worked up the chain," it sure would have been interesting to see how that got resolved. But I guess we got our answer, one way or the other. Things seem to be squarely back on the side of drone operators, internet data miners, and the view that there truly is no articulable right to privacy in America.

 

[JEBland]

That argument also, and fundamentally, ignores the agency involved in the fetus being present in the uterus of the mother. It is not through the agency of the fetus, but rather through the agency of mother and father, that the fetus finds itself in the uterus of the mother. The mother's own actions directly resulted in the outcome; therefore, it is improper to hold the fetus responsible for the result of the action of the mother.

There are several cases (rape, incest) that have been given that it's fundamentally not the mother's option, but we can perhaps set that to the side for the time being.

We still have to set out some condition for "this is when it goes from cells to a human being." We only regulate actions - so when the fetus becomes a human being is when those rights and priority of governmental protection begin. Non-fringe members of society would agree that 7-8 months in, the fetus is surely a human being, so we'd need some extreme circumstance to justify an abortion. Certainly fertilization but not attaching to the uterine wall is not a firm definition of human life beginning. So, where's the line? If it's so subjective, then it's almost surely a legislative matter.


Supposing that we're talking about the more typical case of consensual behavior, and with a definition of when life begins, and we're strictly talking about the competition of rights with respect to bodily autonomy.

In order to have the stance that the government is using women has a shield, we can explore some examples.

• If the woman is (almost surely) going to lose her life via taking the pregnancy to term, then there's an argument that the constitution would dictate the right for the mother to save her own life.
• Suppose we could grow a baby in a tank. It would violate the woman's autonomy to use her as a human shield of the tank. But here we have if a fetus is a human being a more direct competition of two bodies. The abortion is a specific action taken to destroy the fetus - if that fetus is a human being, then it's not justified.
• A less contrived example than the previous is suppose a pregnant woman is about to fall down the stairs. Does she have a legal obligation to fall in a way that minimized potential harm to herself or to the fetus? This is I think the most interesting of the three examples, and I think the tie goes to the woman.

 

[chipbennett]

I think some advocated things like enforcing responsibility by jailing irresponsible parents at some point. CPS has too much power as it is. I'd really like to scale that down. I think the power they wield now is not helping as much as hurting. And that includes the foster system.

I think those are two, entirely different things? I'm talking about removing the hurdles that make adoption difficult, if not impossible. I don't think I've said anything about jailing irresponsible parents? (That seems like it would only compound the problems?)

 

[chipbennett]

Again, it's easy to say that and call it a day. But we have to live in THIS world. I don't think you guys have the political capital to make the world into what you want it to be. Especially with it turning to **** as it is. So work to get what you can in the world that is.

I have no delusions of grandeur about my ability to make the world into anything at all, really. But my inability to make people take responsibility for their actions does not foist upon me the responsibility that others choose not to take.

 

[jamil]

I think those are two, entirely different things? I'm talking about removing the hurdles that make adoption difficult, if not impossible. I don't think I've said anything about jailing irresponsible parents? (That seems like it would only compound the problems?)

No, I wasn't disputing what you're saying. I was trying to offer context to what you were replying to.

 

[BugI02]

You want fewer unwanted babies, stop engaging in the single action that results in unwanted babies.

IMO they don't want fewer unwanted babies, they want to be able to retroactively solve the problem without care or consequence. I just don't see how a bit of caution during sexual activity where a pregnancy would be undesired is too much to ask - especially from people who are quite likely to literally want us to change our entire economy and way of life because the world has warmed 1.5 degrees since the industrial revolution took hold

If all I had to do is put on a rubber to halt global warming, I'm pretty sure I could see my way clear to do so

 

[chipbennett]

There are several cases (rape, incest) that have been given that it's fundamentally not the mother's option, but we can perhaps set that to the side for the time being.

We still have to set out some condition for "this is when it goes from cells to a human being." We only regulate actions - so when the fetus becomes a human being is when those rights and priority of governmental protection begin. Non-fringe members of society would agree that 7-8 months in, the fetus is surely a human being, so we'd need some extreme circumstance to justify an abortion. Certainly fertilization but not attaching to the uterine wall is not a firm definition of human life beginning. So, where's the line? If it's so subjective, then it's almost surely a legislative matter.


Supposing that we're talking about the more typical case of consensual behavior, and with a definition of when life begins, and we're strictly talking about the competition of rights with respect to bodily autonomy.

In order to have the stance that the government is using women has a shield, we can explore some examples.

• If the woman is (almost surely) going to lose her life via taking the pregnancy to term, then there's an argument that the constitution would dictate the right for the mother to save her own life.
• Suppose we could grow a baby in a tank. It would violate the woman's autonomy to use her as a human shield of the tank. But here we have if a fetus is a human being a more direct competition of two bodies. The abortion is a specific action taken to destroy the fetus - if that fetus is a human being, then it's not justified.
• A less contrived example than the previous is suppose a pregnant woman is about to fall down the stairs. Does she have a legal obligation to fall in a way that minimized potential harm to herself or to the fetus? This is I think the most interesting of the three examples, and I think the tie goes to the woman.

The cases of non-elective abortion constitute fewer than 2% of the whole. I am primarily interested in the other 98%. To that end, I do not accept the argument that the developing fetus is violating the bodily autonomy rights of the mother by its mere existence in the uterus. The coequal rights of two living, human beings extend at least as far as the developing fetus having the right not to have its life taken from it intentionally.

Do those coequal rights compel the mother beyond that? Some current state laws would say, yes - that the mother is not free to act intentionally in ways that endanger the life of the developing fetus (e.g. drug use).

 

[ljk]

I think you will find ample common ground among INGOers on the matter of removing bureaucracy, red tape, and needless expense - whether with respect to fostering, adoption, or otherwise. We have way too much government, adversely impacting the lives of many.

And the problem is, government will not change, republicans, democrats, independents, once they are in with the government, they are there for their own good.

Being all that, there isn't enough resources to solve the unwanted children problem, whether you like it or not, that's the reality we are facing now, it's gonna get worse when more are coming.

Unless more people are stepping up to take all the bureaucracy and financial, emotional hit to take more children in their homes, it's only gonna get worse. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, you can't sugar coat that.

I personally don't see abortion as a problem, you can have your option as well.

I'm glad RvW is overturned, because it reaffirmed the boundaries of the federal and state rights.

Everybody whom celebrate the survival of these babies, are facing the problem raising them, too. You can't separate the two.

 

[ljk]

In over 98% of abortions, the relevant admonition is: stop conceiving unwanted kids.

The gays have been doing that, but prolife Christians don't like them either.

 

[chipbennett]

I believe we have no business making laws that involve a womans medical choice with her body.

See, here is that fundamental-disconnect issue: that medical procedure involves more than just the body of the woman. It also involves the body of an entirely separate human being. And therein lies both the problem, and the impasse. If one side refuses to see the developing fetus as a separate, living human being, then there can be no common ground.

 

[ljk]

You want fewer unwanted babies, stop engaging in the single action that results in unwanted babies.

Now, are you expecting people to change? or Coitus permits?