Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Opinion leak confirmed

[Jamiet99uk]

The Rittenhouse ruling post was a great example of this and some portions of your opinion here, especially with the whataboutism with people who are not as passionate as you are, makes it appear you're more just Anti-American than actually want to address the topic of a thread.

And since you keep mentioning Kyle Fucking Rittenhouse like he's some hero of yours:

The reason I talked about Kyle Rittenhouse was because his case highlights, for me, the utter idiocy of the USA's absolutely absurd gun laws. I know you're a gun nut. Firearms turn you on. That's your problem. I'd prefer a society in which fewer people suffered and/or died. You'd prefer a society in which a lot more people got shot. I don't know what's wrong with you.

[Jamiet99uk]

My fucking verdict: Kyle Rittenhouse is a gun-toting white middle class idiot who is lucky to be alive and who ought to be in jail.

[worcej]

Well isn't this what-about-ery of the highest order? I can't have an opinion about abortion rights in the USA unless I also post threads about abortion rights in every other country on Earth? Get out of here.

From my limited involvement in this area, you seem to consistently have opinions on American law/practice without fully understanding the nuance of how America actually works.

The Rittenhouse ruling post was a great example of this and some portions of your opinion here, especially with the whataboutism with people who are not as passionate as you are, makes it appear you're more just Anti-American than actually want to address the topic of a thread.

Let me make myself very clear then.

I want women to have the right of abortion up to and including the day before childbirth.

I consider anyone opposed to this position to be anti-woman, and anti women's rights.

Clear?

Sure - here's mine:

I want women to have the right of abortion up to and including the day before a child could successfully survive outside the womb. Modern medicine lets this be in a range of 20-22 weeks, though it takes significant medical assistance in the early stages of a newborn. The only exception to this timeframe should be in the case of the health of the mother is in jeopardy or the baby is going to be stillborn or die shortly after birth (things that can be detected with typical testing) - it should not be acceptable to decide to abort a baby for any other reason than these beyond approximately week 22.

I consider anyone opposed to this position to be an extremist and someone who doesn't recognize or approve of ~90% of western countries laws on abortion already.

[worcej]

The Rittenhouse ruling post was a great example of this and some portions of your opinion here, especially with the whataboutism with people who are not as passionate as you are, makes it appear you're more just Anti-American than actually want to address the topic of a thread.

And since you keep mentioning Kyle Fucking Rittenhouse like he's some hero of yours:

The reason I talked about Kyle Rittenhouse was because his case highlights, for me, the utter idiocy of the USA's absolutely absurd gun laws. I know you're a gun nut. Firearms turn you on. That's your problem. I'd prefer a society in which fewer people suffered and/or died. You'd prefer a society in which a lot more people got shot. I don't know what's wrong with you.

Once again Jamie, you know nothing about American law, policy, or cultural understanding and are incapable of having a civil conversation with someone who has a different mindset as you.

My fucking verdict: Kyle Rittenhouse is a gun-toting white middle class idiot who is lucky to be alive and who ought to be in jail.

That's a valid personal opinion to have. You're just factually wrong, but that's fine too.

Fortunately the laws of a country you don't live in disagree with your assessment and have handled the issue through our judicial system. If you remotely paid attention to how our country works you'd understand that and not have such a radical opinion based in fantasy land.

[Jamiet99uk]

The Rittenhouse ruling post was a great example of this and some portions of your opinion here, especially with the whataboutism with people who are not as passionate as you are, makes it appear you're more just Anti-American than actually want to address the topic of a thread.

And since you keep mentioning Kyle Fucking Rittenhouse like he's some hero of yours:

The reason I talked about Kyle Rittenhouse was because his case highlights, for me, the utter idiocy of the USA's absolutely absurd gun laws. I know you're a gun nut. Firearms turn you on. That's your problem. I'd prefer a society in which fewer people suffered and/or died. You'd prefer a society in which a lot more people got shot. I don't know what's wrong with you.

Once again Jamie, you know nothing about American law, policy, or cultural understanding and are incapable of having a civil conversation with someone who has a different mindset as you.

My fucking verdict: Kyle Rittenhouse is a gun-toting white middle class idiot who is lucky to be alive and who ought to be in jail.

That's a valid personal opinion to have. You're just factually wrong, but that's fine too.

Fortunately the laws of a country you don't live in disagree with your assessment and have handled the issue through our judicial system. If you remotely paid attention to how our country works you'd understand that and not have such a radical opinion based in fantasy land.

Trigger happy 17 year olds should not be in possession of powerful semi-automatic weapons.

It is not helpful to society for such people to be able to travel from state to state opening fire on people they think might be bad guys.

Civilized countries should not have gun laws which permit or encourage these things.

Discuss.

[Octavious]

Trigger happy 17 year olds should not be in possession of powerful semi-automatic weapons.

Correct

It is not helpful to society for such people to be able to travel from state to state opening fire on people they think might be bad guys.

Also correct, but not at all an accurate description of the Rittenhouse case so somewhat unhelpful to the discussion.

Civilized countries should not have gun laws which permit or encourage these things.

Agreed, but I don't think America has any such laws. People travelling state to state shooting people they think might be bad guys get arrested for murder or attempted murder. Rittenhouse wasn't because he didn't do this.

We are rather a long way off the original discussion topic, by the way. Unless you consider the discussion topic to be popular ways to criticise America.

[Jamiet99uk]

It is not helpful to society for such people to be able to travel from state to state opening fire on people they think might be bad guys.

Also correct, but not at all an accurate description of the Rittenhouse case so somewhat unhelpful to the discussion.

What do you think would be a more accurate summary?

We are rather a long way off the original discussion topic, by the way. Unless you consider the discussion topic to be popular ways to criticise America.

You're right, but it was Worcej who decided to start talking about Kyle Rittenhouse in this thread, not me.

[worcej]

It is not helpful to society for such people to be able to travel from state to state opening fire on people they think might be bad guys.

Also correct, but not at all an accurate description of the Rittenhouse case so somewhat unhelpful to the discussion.

What do you think would be a more accurate summary?

We are rather a long way off the original discussion topic, by the way. Unless you consider the discussion topic to be popular ways to criticise America.

You're right, but it was Worcej who decided to start talking about Kyle Rittenhouse in this thread, not me.

Only to highlight that you seem to come off as Anti-American more than actually care about a specific topic. I brought it up as a reference once and you went balls deep into the subject…

[Octavious]

Let me make myself very clear then.

I want women to have the right of abortion up to and including the day before childbirth.

I consider anyone opposed to this position to be anti-woman, and anti women's rights.

Clear?

I an extremely opposed to this, and consider your position to be effectively pro-murder. Quite how a rational human can hold such a position is beyond my comprehension. The concept of abortions that late I consider to be on a par with the vilest ideas of Nazism.

[Jamiet99uk]

Let me make myself very clear then.

I want women to have the right of abortion up to and including the day before childbirth.

I consider anyone opposed to this position to be anti-woman, and anti women's rights.

Clear?

I an extremely opposed to this, and consider your position to be effectively pro-murder. Quite how a rational human can hold such a position is beyond my comprehension. The concept of abortions that late I consider to be on a par with the vilest ideas of Nazism.

Earlier in this thread somebody said:

"Portraying the other side of the argument as evil guarantees that there will be no converts."

[Octavious]

I don't consider your position to be the other side of the argument. I consider it to be an embarrassing extremist fringe that is highly detrimental to those who support the pro-choice position. The huge negative impact of such arguments on the pro-choice side is far more harmful to women's rights than the ramblings of the most ludicrous anti abortion fundamentalist

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't consider your position to be the other side of the argument. I consider it to be an embarrassing extremist fringe that is highly detrimental to those who support the pro-choice position. The huge negative impact of such arguments on the pro-choice side is far more harmful to women's rights than the ramblings of the most ludicrous anti abortion fundamentalist

The thing is, I think you are reading me posting "I think women should have access to abortions, all the way through pregnancy", and you're interpreting that as "I want lots of babies to be aborted at a late stage in pregnancy; killing unborn babies is cool".

But that's not my view. Like you, actually, I think abortions are often tragic. There are many situations in which a woman might decide she wants an abortion, and many of those circumstances are sad.

However, it is my position that while the unborn baby is in the woman's body, it's her choice.

[Octavious]

The thing is, I think you are reading me posting "I think women should have access to abortions, all the way through pregnancy", and you're interpreting that as "I want lots of babies to be aborted at a late stage in pregnancy; killing unborn babies is cool".

What on earth makes you think I'm interpreting it like that? No, I believe I fully understand your position. You have taken the view that the woman's right to choose is the paramount principle, and that human rights do not exist prior to the point of birth, and the inevitable conclusion that follows is that up until the point of birth the pregnant woman has the right to choose to abort regardless of whether or not you believe her choice to be the right one. In much the same way that I believe that everyone should be free to vote for whomever they wish, whilst at the same time finding people who choose to vote fascist appalling.

I have taken the view, which I believe is scientifically robust, that the difference between a new born baby and a baby just prior to birth is essentially nil, and so should be given the same rights as any other human. The right to life trumps the right to choose, and as such it is impossible to allow the pregnant woman to exercise her right as the harm caused to others is far too great. Any woman who proceeds with a very late term abortion, other than in a medical emergency, should be arrested subject to psychiatric screening. Any doctor who carries out such a procedure should be arrested for murder, and (as I'm not against capital punishment and the murder of children is the most vile of crimes) hung until dead.

[worcej]

The thing is, I think you are reading me posting "I think women should have access to abortions, all the way through pregnancy", and you're interpreting that as "I want lots of babies to be aborted at a late stage in pregnancy; killing unborn babies is cool".

What on earth makes you think I'm interpreting it like that? No, I believe I fully understand your position. You have taken the view that the woman's right to choose is the paramount principle, and that human rights do not exist prior to the point of birth, and the inevitable conclusion that follows is that up until the point of birth the pregnant woman has the right to choose to abort regardless of whether or not you believe her choice to be the right one. In much the same way that I believe that everyone should be free to vote for whomever they wish, whilst at the same time finding people who choose to vote fascist appalling.

I have taken the view, which I believe is scientifically robust, that the difference between a new born baby and a baby just prior to birth is essentially nil, and so should be given the same rights as any other human. The right to life trumps the right to choose, and as such it is impossible to allow the pregnant woman to exercise her right as the harm caused to others is far too great. Any woman who proceeds with a very late term abortion, other than in a medical emergency, should be arrested subject to psychiatric screening. Any doctor who carries out such a procedure should be arrested for murder, and (as I'm not against capital punishment and the murder of children is the most vile of crimes) hung until dead.

FWIW - I interpreted Jamie's stance to be the same as you have outlined as well.

[flash2015]

Certain anti-abortion activists in the US make it appear that women are having abortion on a whim right up to the point of birth ("I will have a big mac, fries and an abortion of my 8 month old fetus").

But there are many potential reasons why an abortion could be necessary after three months:
(1) Medical issue with the mother
(2) Medical issue with the child (either severe deformity or chance of survival to birth low)
(3) Rape/incest

There are obvious scenarios for (1) and (2) where no discussion is required...i.e. the doctor is certain that the mother will die without an abortion. The baby has a problem which means it has no chance of survival.

But there are many fuzzier scenarios:

(1) For example, the mother finds out that at four months she has cancer and the most effective treatments for the cancer would kill the baby. But if she doesn't start the treatment now (or chooses less effective treatments), she most likely will survive at least to bring the baby to term. Do you stop her from having the treatment and force her to have the baby?

(2) The doctor discovers that there is serious medical risk to the mother if she tries to bring it to term...but it is possible that she brings it to term safely. Do you deny abortion in that scenario as there is a chance that the birth is successful?

(3) Pregnancy drives a woman to the brink of suicide (perhaps she has already tried at least once). Do you force her to continue with the pregnancy...going to such extremes like a medically induced coma or institutionalizing her until she gives birth...or do you allow the baby to be aborted?

(4) Several months in to the pregnancy, it is discovered that the baby has down syndrome. Do you allow an abortion to occur for this...or is this not serious enough? If it isn't what is the dividing line for these things?

(5) What about the 14 year old that is part of an abusive family and gets impregnated by the father...and this is only discovered four months in? Do you force her to have the baby anyway?

When you create strict laws on this you potentially harm many people that may have a valid reason for having an abortion. I know if I was a doctor under threat of going to jail, I would be VERY risk averse in making judgment calls in favour of abortion. For me, if my wife's life was in danger, I would NOT want to be in a situation where I potentially have to risk her life because of someone's arbitrary opinion on the matter. My wife is my life partner. IMHO my wife's life should take precedence.

Almost no-one agrees that "abortion on a whim" late in pregnancy is right. In a perfect world, before deciding on how we should protect against this though, we should actually determine whether this "abortion on a whim" thing is actually happening at all...or if it is happening is it occurring often enough to be a real issue (e.g. if it is 1 in 10K should we be stopping the other 9999 for the sake of the 1?). As in most things, there is a cost-benefit here that should be debated.

[Octavious]

But there are many potential reasons why an abortion could be necessary after three months:

Why 3 months, out of interest? That seems a long way off from where the battle lines of the debate are drawn. If we're debating the principle of whether or not the right to abortion must be absolute, it makes sense to debate it in third trimester where the greatest controversy exists. If the principle is sound it will survive the test. If it is not it will fail.

Most of your examples can be summed up by medical emergency. I doubt that you will find much resistance to it.

(4) Several months in to the pregnancy, it is discovered that the baby has down syndrome. Do you allow an abortion to occur for this...or is this not serious enough? If it isn't what is the dividing line for these things?

I don't see how this is anything other than an argument for euthanasia for the severely disabled. I have some sympathy for your views on this, but think that really it is a separate issue to abortion. In a nation where euthanasia is illegal, abortion for this reason should also be illegal, and vice versa.

(5) What about the 14 year old that is part of an abusive family and gets impregnated by the father...and this is only discovered four months in? Do you force her to have the baby anyway?

Again, your choice of timing makes such a dilemma trivial. Make it 8 months. The woman is scared and confused, it wasn't an obvious pregnancy, therefore only got picked up very late on. And yes, despite the situation being a problem about which she is completely blameless, I can't imagine how the death of the unborn child could be justified. There's an argument for inducing an early birth to minimise the potential suffering of the woman, but none for killing the child.

[Octavious]

Your 3rd scenario is really as close to the 5th as makes no difference

[orathaic]

The right to life and to bodily autonomy sometimes conflict.

The solution is simple, remove the fetus/embryo/ whatever stage of development it is at , because it never has a right to comprpmise the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person. It's right to life can then be protected if medical science can keep it alive - ie after viability it isn't going to die. So that is the effective cut-oof point between the choice being an abortion vs a treatment which preserves both lives.

@Jamie, i don't see how you can take this as anti-woman.

All other cases of grey areas where a medical decision has to be made for complex medical reasons should he decided by the pregnant person with the advice of their doctor. Cancer treatments? Here it is the pregnant person's right to life, not right to bodily autonomy which is being threatened. So the rules should more flexible, but i suspect chemotherapy which kills cancerous cells and prevent cell growth may fuck with the healthy development of a fetus without necessarily killing it.

[Octavious]

As much as I am in general agreement with Ora's position, I'm a tad unclear to the reasoning behind the idea that imposing an unwanted surgery on a woman gets around the bodily autonomy issue. I don't think assuming both interventions (abortion and premature delivery) to be equivalent is valid

[orathaic]

I'm not sure i was clear on the nuance.

But the basics of building a rights based society seem valid.

I don't think people should he forced to undergo unwanted surgery, but given the option, if a pregnant person decides they no longer want to be pregnant, the pregnancy should be ended. If there is more than one way to end it then the options should be weighed up to see which is safest, with the life of the adult being prefer to the life of the fetus.

Regardless, premature delivery or C-section both end the pregnancy, I'm not a medical expert, and i know both can have complicatipns, but other options may be safer which do not preserve the life of the fetus.

Seeing them reserved to only those cases where the life of the fetus is not in play would be fine in a system where pregnant people don't have to spend months waiting to save enough money and get time off work to actually get the procedures they need.

As the Irish voted on our abortion referendum (4 years ago yesterday), pregnant people should not be force to travel to another state to access health care. This just makes things worse. Get it to the point where you can head to a local pharmacy on your lunch break and take the pills then and there (for pregnancies under 12 weeks) and make them part of universal health care, and later term issues will he vanishingly rare.