IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion

Reply
Old 5th August 2022, 05:38 PM   #1761
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,749
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Well, though I'm on the rights side here, I think I can imgine a position for the other side which translates more or less into "something is better than nothing." Persons who would like to ban all abortions might, in an actual real world, consider the possibility that allowing certain exceptions comes closer to achieving their goal than disallowing them and losing the whole fight.
Here's my problem with that: if they were really interesting in "coming closer" to achieving their goal, they would support those things that reduce the need for abortion.

Obama went to Notre Dame and argued, at least we can all agree that we want to reduce the number of abortions, right? And the answer was no. They don't want to "reduce the number of abortions." They have to eliminate all of them. That's why they can't accept compromises that would merely "reduce" the number of abortions. It does not achieve their goal
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

Last edited by pgwenthold; 5th August 2022 at 05:40 PM.
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2022, 05:54 PM   #1762
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yes whereas when she has an abortion she doesn't have to worry about that.
No, she doesn't. Which is why terminating a non-sentient entity should be left up to the woman.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2022, 07:46 PM   #1763
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Here's my problem with that: if they were really interesting in "coming closer" to achieving their goal, they would support those things that reduce the need for abortion.

Obama went to Notre Dame and argued, at least we can all agree that we want to reduce the number of abortions, right? And the answer was no. They don't want to "reduce the number of abortions." They have to eliminate all of them. That's why they can't accept compromises that would merely "reduce" the number of abortions. It does not achieve their goal
I think that's true of some, but I also think that what is at issue here is not the rational idea of achieving a goal, but the idea of getting a law passed, and the very idea of a right destroyed, and for that, compromise may be necessary even if you have to hold your nose, especially if you're just inserting the thin end of the wedge.

I am quite willing to consider the anti-abortion activists as lacking in quality of thought, imposing sexual bigotry and muddled morals, and often enough just insincere and hypocritical.

The actual elimination of abortions is only part of the goal. After all, many on the far right are ready to go after birth control and sex education too, and not to belabor the obvious, but from the anti-abortion standpoint, there is little more effective than gay sex. The other part, getting a patriarchal sectarian government, might be (at least for some) worth tossing the victims of rape and incest a lagniappe, especially since, if the job is done right, it can be manipulated, and if not simply withdrawn, made so cumbersome and embarrassing and punitive that it might as well be.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2022, 10:25 PM   #1764
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Here's my problem with that: if they were really interesting in "coming closer" to achieving their goal, they would support those things that reduce the need for abortion.

Obama went to Notre Dame and argued, at least we can all agree that we want to reduce the number of abortions, right? And the answer was no. They don't want to "reduce the number of abortions." They have to eliminate all of them. That's why they can't accept compromises that would merely "reduce" the number of abortions. It does not achieve their goal
I've argued before and will still: this to me signals that many are more interested in punishing women for having abortions than they are in stopping abortions. "for having abortions" can probably be removed without altering its accuracy.
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 5th August 2022 at 10:39 PM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 10:24 AM   #1765
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,185
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I've argued before and will still: this to me signals that many are more interested in punishing women for having abortions than they are in stopping abortions. "for having abortions" can probably be removed without altering its accuracy.
Even simpler explanation. They want to control women.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 10:45 AM   #1766
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, she doesn't. Which is why terminating a non-sentient entity should be left up to the woman.
Exactly. People forget that a fetus is a parasite. It is an organism that takes a toll on its host. Women pay a health price almost from day one upon getting pregnant. And the act of delivery takes another toll.

It should never be up to anyone other than the person with this organism inside them to decide what to do about it. I'm one of those people who believe women should have the right to terminate right up to 9 months. It's all about bodily autonomy. Making abortion illegal is stealing a woman's right over their own body.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 10:48 AM   #1767
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,424
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. People forget that a fetus is a parasite. It is an organism that takes a toll on its host. Women pay a health price almost from day one upon getting pregnant. And the act of delivery takes another toll.

It should never be up to anyone other than the person with this organism inside them to decide what to do about it. I'm one of those people who believe women should have the right to terminate right up to 9 months. It's all about bodily autonomy. Making abortion illegal is stealing a woman's right over their own body.
If it is a parasite, then it seems the government could mandate abortions as part of a public health initiative.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 11:00 AM   #1768
slyjoe
Illuminator
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. People forget that a fetus is a parasite. It is an organism that takes a toll on its host. Women pay a health price almost from day one upon getting pregnant. And the act of delivery takes another toll.

It should never be up to anyone other than the person with this organism inside them to decide what to do about it. I'm one of those people who believe women should have the right to terminate right up to 9 months. It's all about bodily autonomy. Making abortion illegal is stealing a woman's right over their own body.
Which is why I'm a little uneasy over states voting on abortion laws. A right should not be voted on. We don't do it for other rights. Can you imagine voting on the rights in the Bill of Rights?
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 11:03 AM   #1769
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If it is a parasite, then it seems the government could mandate abortions as part of a public health initiative.
Nonsense. What do you think is the definition of a parasite?

parasite noun

par·​a·​site | \ ˈper-ə-ˌsīt , ˈpa-rə- \
plural parasites
Definition of parasite
1: an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host.

Some women want to have children and are willing to share their body with this organism. They should have that right too.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 11:05 AM   #1770
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Which is why I'm a little uneasy over states voting on abortion laws. A right should not be voted on. We don't do it for other rights. Can you imagine voting on the rights in the Bill of Rights?
I understand that. But what is the choice? Keep in mind that the founders were more than willing to take that right from people of color.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 6th August 2022 at 11:09 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 11:28 AM   #1771
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,479
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
Which is why I'm a little uneasy over states voting on abortion laws. A right should not be voted on. We don't do it for other rights. Can you imagine voting on the rights in the Bill of Rights?
What do you mean by "right" here? I think I heard the historian David Starkey talking about them the other day as something like privileges (I'm getting that word wrong, but I can't remember the correct one) that we believe in so passionately that we are unwilling to put them up for debate. The difficulty of course is what to do when a supposed right is contentious.
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 11:28 AM   #1772
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,424
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Nonsense. What do you think is the definition of a parasite?

parasite noun

par·​a·​site | \ ˈper-ə-ˌsīt , ˈpa-rə- \
plural parasites
Definition of parasite
1: an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host.

Some women want to have children and are willing to share their body with this organism. They should have that right too.
The US government has had campaigns to destroy things like parasites regardless if a person wanted it


ETA: viruses are parasites

ETA2: except for COVID unfortunately.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 6th August 2022 at 11:31 AM.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 11:55 AM   #1773
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I understand that. But what is the choice? Keep in mind that the founders were more than willing to take that right from people of color.
True enough, but the simplistic answer is that they were wrong to do so. The choice then is, perhaps, as simple as not dong the wrong thing again.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 12:32 PM   #1774
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. People forget that a fetus is a parasite. It is an organism that takes a toll on its host. Women pay a health price almost from day one upon getting pregnant. And the act of delivery takes another toll.

It should never be up to anyone other than the person with this organism inside them to decide what to do about it. I'm one of those people who believe women should have the right to terminate right up to 9 months. It's all about bodily autonomy. Making abortion illegal is stealing a woman's right over their own body.
Uh-oh. Now you've done it...

Cue righteous indignation.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 01:31 PM   #1775
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Uh-oh. Now you've done it...

Cue righteous indignation.
I know. It's like I've crossed the line.

But the simple fact is a fetus is dependent on the woman it inhabits for all its necessary nutrients. It's a simple fact that a woman's body is changed forever by pregnancy.

Who am I to tell a woman to go through all that? Who am I to tell a young girl, that she must deliver it and raise it when maybe she doesn't want it? Who am I to dictate her future?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 01:33 PM   #1776
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I know. It's like I've crossed the line.

But the simple fact is a fetus is dependent on the woman it inhabits for all its necessary nutrients. It's a simple fact that a woman's body is changed forever by pregnancy.

Who am I to tell a woman to go through all that? Who am I to tell a young girl, that she must deliver it and raise it when maybe she doesn't want it? Who am I to dictate her future?
An anti-choice advocate.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 02:03 PM   #1777
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,589
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Here's my problem with that: if they were really interesting in "coming closer" to achieving their goal, they would support those things that reduce the need for abortion.l
"More restrictive abortion laws don't make the number of abortions go down" is one of those facts that the other side has to deny in order to maintain viable.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 02:11 PM   #1778
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
An anti-choice advocate.
Well it ain't me.

This is the proverbial example of the dog that chases the car catching it. It's not what they expected. The GOP has been always been in theory pro-life for 45 years when in reality many people who have voted Republican are not. But they never really had to concern themselves with the issue. They got the votes without having to deal with any political ramifications. It was an unholy alliance with one issue voters. Same as it is with guns.

Many Republicans didn't want to "win on abortion" but they want the issue. They're a scene in The West Wing that explains in an offhand way.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Lots of Republicans said "Hell No" in Kansas on making abortion illegal. The GOP just did more to divide its party than the Democrats could ever do.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 02:14 PM   #1779
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"More restrictive abortion laws don't make the number of abortions go down" is one of those facts that the other side has to deny in order to maintain viable.
Yep. And Pandora's box is open with easy travel and pharmaceutical abortions.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 02:43 PM   #1780
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Well it ain't me.

This is the proverbial example of the dog that chases the car catching it. It's not what they expected. The GOP has been always been in theory pro-life for 45 years when in reality many people who have voted Republican are not. But they never really had to concern themselves with the issue. They got the votes without having to deal with any political ramifications. It was an unholy alliance with one issue voters. Same as it is with guns.

Many Republicans didn't want to "win on abortion" but they want the issue. They're a scene in The West Wing that explains in an offhand way.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Lots of Republicans said "Hell No" in Kansas on making abortion illegal. The GOP just did more to divide its party than the Democrats could ever do.
I agree. There are many Republicans who did not want R v W overturned, but they loved the issue to be used as a political cudgel against the Dems.

"The Public Religion Research Institute is out with one of the first big polls testing abortion views in a post-Roe world. The big takeaway is that caution is the watchword for Republicans who are newly empowered to severely restrict abortion rights."

The poll shows that:

61 percent of Republicans oppose making it a felony to seek an abortion.

48 percent of Republicans oppose making it a felony to perform an abortion.

64 percent of Republicans oppose making it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion.

39 percent of Republicans oppose banning abortion after the 6th week of pregnancy.

56 percent of Republicans oppose laws making it explicitly illegal to order abortion pills by mail.

52 percent of Republicans oppose an abortion ban that would provide an exception only for the life of the pregnant individual.

48 percent of Republicans oppose making it a felony to perform an abortion.

21 percent of Republicans oppose making it illegal to obtain an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy

"In some ways, a post-Roe world was more beneficial to the GOP politically as a hypothetical. But now that hypothetical is reality. And Republicans will face pressure from some in their base to go down some of these roads, after years of activists dreaming about just such an opportunity."
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 03:04 PM   #1781
slyjoe
Illuminator
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I understand that. But what is the choice? Keep in mind that the founders were more than willing to take that right from people of color.
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
True enough, but the simplistic answer is that they were wrong to do so. The choice then is, perhaps, as simple as not dong the wrong thing again.
The choice seems to be one of body autonomy. I would word it similar to the other enumerated rights. Something like "The government shall not infringe the right of people to do what they want with their bodies."

Hell, that could take care of abortion, sex work, and euthanasia in one fell swoop.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 03:12 PM   #1782
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I agree. There are many Republicans who did not want R v W overturned, but they loved the issue to be used as a political cudgel against the Dems.

"The Public Religion Research Institute is out with one of the first big polls testing abortion views in a post-Roe world. The big takeaway is that caution is the watchword for Republicans who are newly empowered to severely restrict abortion rights."

The poll shows that:

61 percent of Republicans oppose making it a felony to seek an abortion.

48 percent of Republicans oppose making it a felony to perform an abortion.

64 percent of Republicans oppose making it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion.

39 percent of Republicans oppose banning abortion after the 6th week of pregnancy.

56 percent of Republicans oppose laws making it explicitly illegal to order abortion pills by mail.

52 percent of Republicans oppose an abortion ban that would provide an exception only for the life of the pregnant individual.

48 percent of Republicans oppose making it a felony to perform an abortion.

21 percent of Republicans oppose making it illegal to obtain an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy

"In some ways, a post-Roe world was more beneficial to the GOP politically as a hypothetical. But now that hypothetical is reality. And Republicans will face pressure from some in their base to go down some of these roads, after years of activists dreaming about just such an opportunity."
Before the Roe v Wade decision came down in the 1970s, the GOP as a party wasn't pro-life. Some were, some weren't, but it wasn't anywhere near the universal stance it was after the 1980 election. Ronnie changed all that. He made an alliance with the evangelicals and this despite that Ronnie hated Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell etc. He thought they were nuts.

Now the politicians have to deal with the political effects of saying a raped ten year old can't get an abortion or throwing doctors in jail.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 03:13 PM   #1783
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
The choice seems to be one of body autonomy. I would word it similar to the other enumerated rights. Something like "The government shall not infringe the right of people to do what they want with their bodies."

Hell, that could take care of abortion, sex work, and euthanasia in one fell swoop.
Yes, but it does cause a problem with vaccinations. Not a free lunch.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 05:55 PM   #1784
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yes, but it does cause a problem with vaccinations. Not a free lunch.
But isn't that the case already? As many people have demonstrated by dying of Covid, catching measles and polio and so on, if you're willing to pay the price, you can opt out of the lunch. The right not to vaccinate is not the same as the right to do other things in society, like going to school or entering a theater or working in a hospital, many of which are inherently conditional.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 06:47 PM   #1785
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But isn't that the case already? As many people have demonstrated by dying of Covid, catching measles and polio and so on, if you're willing to pay the price, you can opt out of the lunch. The right not to vaccinate is not the same as the right to do other things in society, like going to school or entering a theater or working in a hospital, many of which are inherently conditional.

People are going to do what they are going to. The question is the law.

People will obtain abortions despite the law in their particular state. I've heard of states possibly creating laws that prevent someone traveling for the purpose of obtaining an abortion but that seems grotesquely unconstitutional. It isn't explicit but Interstate has been considered a constitutionally protected right. Even the turd Kavanaugh has said that.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2022, 10:49 PM   #1786
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
People are going to do what they are going to. The question is the law.

People will obtain abortions despite the law in their particular state. I've heard of states possibly creating laws that prevent someone traveling for the purpose of obtaining an abortion but that seems grotesquely unconstitutional. It isn't explicit but Interstate has been considered a constitutionally protected right. Even the turd Kavanaugh has said that.
I get all that. My point is simply that slyjoe's suggestion of establishing the right of bodily autonomy does not, inherently, seem to cause a problem with vaccination requirements, as those involve what you may not do if unvaccinated. While in terms of leading a normal life in society, these requirements virtually force vaccination, technically they do not.

I imagine that it's true that there can be no law that prevents interstate travel, though I don't trust various states not to try it anyway, perhaps using the civil suit dodge of Texas. But what I'm less sure of is what laws might be possible if you come back.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2022, 12:13 PM   #1787
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I get all that. My point is simply that slyjoe's suggestion of establishing the right of bodily autonomy does not, inherently, seem to cause a problem with vaccination requirements, as those involve what you may not do if unvaccinated. While in terms of leading a normal life in society, these requirements virtually force vaccination, technically they do not.
If that were established, and if I were a lawyer filing against vaccination requirements, I would argue that the extent to which choosing not to vaccinate shuts a person out from public gatherings and spaces, has a chilling effect on their right to bodily autonomy. It does not matter if you have the technical right if exercising it is onerously impractical due to government actions. That kind of argument is a vital defense of other rights, such as those in the First Amendment.

This does not mean I am against such mandates, but there's no way around confronting the question of the limits of bodily autonomy when it affects others, as it does with contagious diseases. We ultimately need to establish those boundaries, not leave them unspoken and count on technicalities.
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 7th August 2022 at 12:18 PM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2022, 01:35 PM   #1788
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
If that were established, and if I were a lawyer filing against vaccination requirements, I would argue that the extent to which choosing not to vaccinate shuts a person out from public gatherings and spaces, has a chilling effect on their right to bodily autonomy. It does not matter if you have the technical right if exercising it is onerously impractical due to government actions. That kind of argument is a vital defense of other rights, such as those in the First Amendment.

This does not mean I am against such mandates, but there's no way around confronting the question of the limits of bodily autonomy when it affects others, as it does with contagious diseases. We ultimately need to establish those boundaries, not leave them unspoken and count on technicalities.
I agree. We could propose that bodily autonomy is everyone's right but not when a decision such as non-vaccinating would negatively affect the physical health of other people. However, the GOP would simply declare that a fetus is a 'person', therefore abortion negatively affects other 'people'. We'd have to come to a legal consensus of what a 'person' is and that isn't going to happen:

Quote:
In 1973, the high court ruled that Texas was wrong. “The word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” wrote Justice Harry Blackmun in his landmark opinion. The Supreme Court held that personhood could not be granted to a fetus before “viability”—the point around 24 weeks of pregnancy when a fetus can survive outside the womb—and established a constitutional right to abortion access.

But nearly 50 years later, Roe was overturned, and Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Friday that Roe was “egregiously wrong from the start.” Now, laws that establish fetal personhood—meaning they extend the legal rights of people to a fetus or embryo before viability—could be the next frontier in the legal battle over reproductive rights in the United States.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2022, 01:39 PM   #1789
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
If that were established, and if I were a lawyer filing against vaccination requirements, I would argue that the extent to which choosing not to vaccinate shuts a person out from public gatherings and spaces, has a chilling effect on their right to bodily autonomy. It does not matter if you have the technical right if exercising it is onerously impractical due to government actions. That kind of argument is a vital defense of other rights, such as those in the First Amendment.

This does not mean I am against such mandates, but there's no way around confronting the question of the limits of bodily autonomy when it affects others, as it does with contagious diseases. We ultimately need to establish those boundaries, not leave them unspoken and count on technicalities.
YES! YES! YES!

The courts have probably always been partisan to some degree, but they weren't totally stupid until recently.

But I agree. We should have national laws based entirely upon scientific expertise regarding vaccines for infectious diseases. Appeals for exemptions of any kind should go through medical boards not the courts.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2022, 01:48 PM   #1790
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,185
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"More restrictive abortion laws don't make the number of abortions go down" is one of those facts that the other side has to deny in order to maintain viable.
It's the same group that advocates abstinence-only education....They don't care that it doesn't work and actually increases teenage pregnancy.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2022, 01:49 PM   #1791
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,790
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I agree. We could propose that bodily autonomy is everyone's right but not when a decision such as non-vaccinating would negatively affect the physical health of other people. However, the GOP would simply declare that a fetus is a 'person', therefore abortion negatively affects other 'people'. We'd have to come to a legal consensus of what a 'person' is and that isn't going to happen:
Just make bodily autonomy inviolate except when public health is at stake. Maybe also exceptions based on mental health. It then doesn’t matter if we declare a fetus a person. A person does not have the right to use another person's body absent consent. An unwanted fetus does not have consent.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2022, 03:57 PM   #1792
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,776
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
If that were established, and if I were a lawyer filing against vaccination requirements, I would argue that the extent to which choosing not to vaccinate shuts a person out from public gatherings and spaces, has a chilling effect on their right to bodily autonomy. It does not matter if you have the technical right if exercising it is onerously impractical due to government actions. That kind of argument is a vital defense of other rights, such as those in the First Amendment.

This does not mean I am against such mandates, but there's no way around confronting the question of the limits of bodily autonomy when it affects others, as it does with contagious diseases. We ultimately need to establish those boundaries, not leave them unspoken and count on technicalities.
I'll go along with that. You are of course correct in that vaccination is not only a choice of one's own bodily autonomy but a social one in which individual rights are not the only consideration. I'm playing the technicality here.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 06:08 AM   #1793
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,589
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I've argued before and will still: this to me signals that many are more interested in punishing women for having abortions than they are in stopping abortions. "for having abortions" can probably be removed without altering its accuracy.
This.

When anything, literally one single action, they do actually makes sense within the context of protecting the precious widdle unborn babies and doesn't make 100% perfect sense within the context of "punishing women for having sex" then... okay then maybe compromise or "meet halfway" or something like that can at least go back on the table.

As it stands though? No. They are not honest agents in this discussion and should not be treated as such.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 07:20 AM   #1794
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,740
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Also "Except in the case of rape" is largely a social compromise, it's not (all the time) a stance someone holds on a personal level.
And that they view children as punishment.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 08:34 AM   #1795
cmikes
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 623
Nvm. Not worth the response on a religious forum.

Last edited by cmikes; 8th August 2022 at 08:37 AM.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 09:04 AM   #1796
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Nvm. Not worth the response on a religious forum.
I think you might have been confused as to where you were posting.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 09:13 AM   #1797
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,589
The very suggestion of any valid comparison between vaccine mandates and abortions rights is dishonest lying.

There's no equivalent to "herd immunity" with pregnancy. A woman getting an abortion doesn't increase the chances of other women around her having miscarriages. There is no comparison.

This is not difficult to understand, so nobody put on a big show of pretending it is.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 09:37 AM   #1798
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The very suggestion of any valid comparison between vaccine mandates and abortions rights is dishonest lying.
I suppose the idea of "my body, my choice" only makes sense in the latter context?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 10:11 AM   #1799
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 33,049
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I suppose the idea of "my body, my choice" only makes sense in the latter context?
It does, for the most part, because with vaccinations, it's not just your body, is it? Your decisions have an effect on your entire human being community's bodies, or more if the disease in question is virulent enough. The burden of taking a vaccine on you is quite small and the benefit is huge.

With abortion, at most, you're talking about a potential human being. The burden on the mother is quite large and prolonged with huge potential drawbacks.

It's not quite the same, is it?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 10:14 AM   #1800
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,424
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
It does, for the most part, because with vaccinations, it's not just your body, is it? Your decisions have an effect on your entire human being community's bodies, or more if the disease in question is virulent enough. The burden of taking a vaccine on you is quite small and the benefit is huge.

With abortion, at most, you're talking about a potential human being. The burden on the mother is quite large and prolonged with huge potential drawbacks.

It's not quite the same, is it?
"my body my choice" contains no such qualifications.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.