The list of sins in the churches (temples, mosques, etc.) shouldn't be the basis of secular law. — Bitter Crank

Sure. But if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy. No one has a right to privately commit murder.

Before I accepted the idea that anti-unionism was a prime driver of prohibition, I'd want to read a strong case for that view. But again, the major drive for prohibition came from rural protestants who were not witnessing a whole lot of union organizing. — Bitter Crank

Yes. It was that the connection to the labor movement oiled the tracks for an amendment, not that that was the primary wind behind it.

Sure. But if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy. No one has a right to privately commit murder.

It should be brushed aside. What matters in this context is the constitution and precedent, and how well our supreme jurists can stretch the plain meaning of language to suit their interpretations. Public opinion doesn’t matter, or it ought not to according to the system it operates in.

I think it's unsurprising Roe v. Wade is being overturned. That a majority of the Justices intended to do so has been apparent, despite their disingenuous and cynical performances during the appointment process (itself something of a farce).

The release of the first draft of an opinion is surprising. The rather shoddy quality of the opinion in various respects is somewhat surprising as well as its likeness to a rant or polemic, but it will likely become sleeker--and slicker--in subsequent drafts.

It's pleasant to think that the Supreme Court Justices are above the fray, devoted merely to the law, but they clearly are not. They're as much political hacks as any of those who grunt and strike poses in Congress or the White House. There was a time when it could be believed they were at least somewhat more intelligent than the ordinary lackeys of the plutocracy who run our government on its behalf, but the increasingly corrupt nature of the selection process seems more and more to assure they're not that either. Thus we have, for example, the nearly catatonic Thomas, Kavanaugh (the court's Eddie Haskell) and Barrett (remarkable for being someone who spent only a few years practicing law but now sits on the Supreme Court).

Can't wait for the next decision.

if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy

This is why I am sympathetic to the conviction of pro life. These people literally believe the government allowing access to abortion is them legally protecting murder. I understand their motivation, even if I disagree with when they define a baby as being the moment the sperm enters the egg.

In my opinion, both pro-lifers and pro-choices have a point. It would be ridiculous to allow abortions the day before delivery while considering it murder the day after. So at what point does the fetus stop becoming part of the woman’s body and start becoming a “baby” (sorites paradox)? At what point does it deserve moral consideration? Scalar morality could help here.

One very interesting analogy here is slavery. In the 1800s some states found it morally reprehensible while others wanted to allow it. If the southern states hadn’t succeeded from the union, it may never have been possible to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery (because the ratification of the 13th amendment was necessary to rejoin the union IIRC). Without a situation like this, can the federal government pass laws to limits states’ abilities to pass laws? Very interesting situation.

if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy. — frank

But if their view on this is rooted in their religion, then it shouldn't be the determinant of what is law. There are reasonable approaches they could take to reduce abortions: support agencies that provide medical and other financial support for poor, pregnant women; education; ensuring access to birth control; adopting (otherwise) unwanted children...

In my opinion, both pro-lifers and pro-choices have a point. It would be ridiculous to allow abortions the day before delivery while considering it murder the day after. So at what point does the fetus stop becoming part of the woman’s body and start becoming a “baby” (sorites paradox)? At what point does it deserve moral consideration? Scalar morality could help here. — Paulm12

That's a fair point, and I haven't had a problem with placing some reasonable restrictions - although there should be medical exceptions in any case.

But if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy.

I maintain that defining abortion as murder is a particular religious belief. Medically aborting a blastocyst (recently fertilized egg) is clearly not the same as killing a someone who has been born (5 minutes, 5 years, or 50 years ago), Neither is aborting a 6 week fetus, which is entirely non-viable. Neither is aborting a 5 month non-viable fetus.

Aborting an 8 month altogether viable fetus comes much closer to your claim of abortion as murder. Such abortions are extremely rare and are the result of severe compromise of maternal health, where it's the baby OR the mother.

So yes: privacy matters here. Abortion as murder can be a privately held idea, and should apply only to the person holding the view. Hence the good slogan: "Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one." — frank

I agree.

But if their view on this is rooted in their religion, then it shouldn't be the determinant of what is law. — Relativist

We don't screen voters for their justifications. You're a citizen, you get a vote.

I think it's unsurprising Roe v. Wade is being overturned. That a majority of the Justices intended to do so has been apparent, despite their disingenuous and cynical performances during the appointment process (itself something of a farce). — Ciceronianus

It's true they were being disingenuous, but almost everyone knew which way they leaned - that's why Dems opposed them and GOP supported them.

Anti-abortion voters had an advantage over pro-choice voters: they were single issue voters- they wouldn't vote for a dog-catcher if they suspected she was pro-choice. Pro-choice voters weighed this among a variety of issues, and I suspect many just took Roe v Wade for granted.

So yes: privacy matters here. Abortion as murder can be a privately held idea, and should apply only to the person holding the view. — Bitter Crank

:yikes: It never works that way. Abortion is either murder or it's not. If it is, it's everybody's business.

Barrett (remarkable for being someone who spent only a few years practicing law but now sits on the Supreme Court). — Ciceronianus

You're suggesting she isn't qualified (as your eyes glaze over and you fall forward).

:up: :up:

We don't screen voters for their justifications. You're a citizen, you get a vote. — frank

Of course, but the establishment clause prohibits laws that force a particular religious view on the rest of us. That's what abortion bans do.

There's more to it, of course, but this aspect is rarely brought up.

. Abortion is either murder or it's not. If it is, it's everybody's business.

No - there's no objectively correct answer. Is a zygote a human being? What establishes that? God implanting a soul? "Human being" is a fuzzy concept.

Of course, but the establishment clause prohibits laws that force a particular religious view on the rest of us. That's what abortion bans do.

There's more to it, of course, but this aspect is rarely brought up. — Relativist

11% of atheists are pro life. So it's not necessarily a religious view.

No - there's no objectively correct answer. Is a zygote a human being? What establishes that? God implanting a soul? "Human being" is a fuzzy concept. — Relativist

Nevertheless, if a portion of the community is crying "murder," it's your business.

Sure. But if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy. No one has a right to privately commit murder. — frank

If the law wishes to mandate children being brought into the world, then it seems to me that the law should also provide for the upbringing of that child, and every mother should therefore receive a reasonable living wage as employee of the state, while their child is a minor. The law forbids murder, but it has then to provide a justice system that deals with annoying people in some other way, because murder works.

Sounds good to me.

5 pages and no mention of women simply being in charge of their own bodies. Murder all the preborn children. It doesn't and shouldn't matter one bit.

This is something that bothers me about the stance of (some) conservatives. It doesn’t make sense to me to campaign for anti-abortion/pro-life and also teach abstinence only and make it difficult to access contraceptives. In my view, people are going to have sex no matter what. And if you want to avoid abortions, then one easy way is to provide/teach about birth control.

Then again, most Protestants are fine with birth control (interestingly, I think Catholicism is against it).

I guess one counterargument could be that supporters of abstinence-only education do so out of the belief that comprehensive guides to sex or information about contraceptives will ultimately result in teens actively pursuing and engaging in sexual activities. Although I believe the evidence shows it is ineffective at this-research in the US showed abstinence-only education is related to increases in teen pregnancy and teen birth rates. Comprehensive sexual education on the other hand leads to a reduction in teenage birthrates. Thus, I think pro-life should not be teaching abstinence only.

, , why not have males carry some responsibility here, instead of males just legislating females' bodies? Pregnancy "takes two", right? Suppose the female part of the population rose to vote that in, what do you think would happen? Perhaps if and only if early abortion was made illegal?

I'll readily admit to having an emotional attachment to life. Yet, a couple of months in, a fetus is a lump of cells about the size of a cherry, something like that. That's not a person. My neighbor's kid is. It's more like a cyst. No more a person or conscious than pre-conception sperm and egg. And that's a difference that makes a difference. That said, it's not like abortion is a positive thing (anti-natalists not invited).

^{Some Christians on abortion: We don't care about bodily autonomy or individual choice! We're trying to protect innocent lives!
Some Christians on COVID-19: We don't care about protecting innocent lives! We care about bodily autonomy and individual choice!}

(rant over) :) (nothing to see here, move along)

:up:

11% of atheists are pro life. So it's not necessarily a religious view. — frank

That's a small fraction, and I would guess many of them are malleable/educable (e.g. the survey shows the fraction was reduced from a 2007 survey). A view rooted a a religious belief will be incorrigible.

Nevertheless, if a portion of the community is crying "murder," it's your business. — frank

I agree, and I've brought up this issue with many of them. I understand and respect that it's murder from their perspective, and that this is a valid perspective. This seems to be what you are trying to convey, but I'm just adding that it's worthwhile to try to help them understand that other perspectives are also valid.

I agree, and I've brought up this issue with many of them. I understand and respect that it's murder from their perspective, and that this is a valid perspective. This seems to be what you are trying to convey, but I'm just adding that it's worthwhile to try to help them understand that other perspectives are also valid. — Relativist

:100: :grin:

My to-do list for the day: Give granny more-fatal cancer. Murder all preborns. Take dog for a walk.

More fetal cancer.

why not have males carry some responsibility here, instead of males just legislating females' bodies? — jorndoe

What do you think, we might implant the males with a womb, and make each one of them take a turn at looking after the unborn? Or how else do you propose that the male might carry some of this responsibility?

It's quite simple. Insofar as men are 100% responsible for all pregnancies, if a woman falls pregnant and carries to term, the man takes 100% responsibility for the child.

The abortion debate would stop tomorrow.

--

To be fair the murdering is a choice. The mother's choice, specifically. If one is going to be linguistically blackmailed by misogynists, then one tidy solution is to grasp the nettle rather than debate this shit on their terms. Abortion is murder? Fine. But perfectly good murder.

Or how else do you propose that the male might carry some of this responsibility? — Metaphysician Undercover

By not being able to impregnate women, well, unless they plan to, with them.
Problem solved, no more abortions. :up:

Some Christians on abortion: We don't care about bodily autonomy or individual choice! We're trying to protect innocent lives!
Some Christians on COVID-19: We don't care about protecting innocent lives! We care about bodily autonomy and individual choice! — jorndoe

Superb! That's the kind of analytical work that deserves a gold star!

That says it all, doesn't it? Vide infra $\downarrow$

Abortion rights in America date to 1973, when the high court by a 7-2 vote declared that a constitutional right to privacy, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment, covered a woman's right to end a pregnancy.
— CNN

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.
— Justice Samuel Alito (conservative)


Lemme get this straight. Abortion was legalized based on the right to privacy. Aren't Republicans/conservatives (the pro-life faction) staunch defenders of privacy?

:confused:

Something doesn't add up...or does it? — Agent Smith

How is the right to privacy grounds for right to abortion? Beats me! If such is true, wouldn't abolishing/banning abortions infringe on one's privacy? If yes, are conservatives ok with the tradeoff - no abortions but less privacy?

Also, before I forget to mention it, the abortion debate and how it's panning out is, to my reckoning, the first tentative step towards Americanistan - a (Christian) theocracy à la Iran :fear: . This is a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions!

My to-do list for the day: Give granny more-fatal cancer. Murder all preborns. Take dog for a walk. — Baden

You would feel at home in a Hercule Poirot mystery novel. Long live the Duchess of Death! :grin:

@T Clark

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/victorian-liberal-bernie-finn-praying-for-abortion-ban/101041168

Additional reasons why American bullshit infects the rest of the world.

American bullshit — Streetlight

Every country, people, person, group, tribe, everyone has their own bullshit. The task, it seems, is to sort, categorize, file and, finally...pick one that stinks the least. Not créme de la créme, but poop de la poop! Sorry, if I interrupted you.