Must be, completely mad,
The Supreme Court has overturned the constitutional right to abortion.
yet
Fiercely upholds the right for anyone to carry and use firearms.
So you cant kill your kids in the womb, but perfectly ok to shoot them at school.
|
|
They are an odd bunch but then they no doubt think that about us.
|
According to some reports, they are going after the right to contraception and gay marriage next.
I am anti abortion by the way, a conscience thing, but I respect a woman's right to choose.
Re gay marriage, I know a couple of ladies that are married and you couldn't find a nicer couple. Why shouldn't all couples have the same rights and obligations under the law, regardless of gender?
They will be looking at bringing back segregation and banning inter-race relationships and marriages next.
|
Religious tyranny rears it's ugly head. Anyone against abortion has a simple solution, don't have one.
Not good enough for the God squad though, we must all be forced to follow their teachings.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sat 25 Jun 22 at 14:37
|
The land of the free imposes more restrictions on the rights of its citizens.
|
Some say the novel "1984" is an instruction manual for despots.
I wonder how long before the same is true for the novel "The Handmaid's Tail" to be considered in the same light?
|
"The Handmaid's Tail"
Is this the book about a mermaid?
|
|
It's weird how the republicans are obsessed with child safety when it's a foetus but don't give a damn about children being murdered in schools.
|
>> It's weird how the republicans are obsessed with child safety when it's a foetus but
>> don't give a damn about children being murdered in schools.
The care for the foetus is based on religion and not any practical consideration.
|
Ah, religion...
I suppose the guns come under smiting.
|
|
Maybe they could ban bullets, that way ya'll could still hold up the local liquor store, or threaten some punk on the highway, but no one would get hurt, unless, as my wife just pointed out, you bashed 'em over the head with your gun.
|
I read the Washington Post most days since I got a give-away subscription at the beginning of the year.
The far-right populist stuff I can sort of understand, because - sadly - Republicans have found they can find wealthy people with vested interests to fund them and useful idiots to vote them in.
But the abortion ban is not popular. 60% are 'pro-choice'. Republicans are more 'pro-life' but a very substantial minority are pro-choice. Whilst it will appeal to many of the GOP base in the bible belt, where the Republicans are in the main invincible anyway, it will surley hurt them elsewhere. The "pro-life" and pro-choice camps very much map onto partisan voting tendency.
I hate the way that the argument is construed as two equivalent positions, alternate sides of a coin. One lot thinks that women should have a choice. The others want to make everyone follow their own supposed beliefs which makes them no better than the Taliban.
The Texas attorney general has said he is prepared to look at the ideas of making seeking/obtaining out-of-state abortion illegal, with penalties for anyone assisting, and rolling back gay rights legislation (including same sex marriage and suggesting he would be prepared to defend laws prohibiting intimate same sex relationships).
I would not have thought this possible pre-Trump, even though I am aware of the fondness for "religious" doctrine in the bible belt.
Thank god I'm an atheist.
|
"Thank god I'm an atheist."
Wittiest line we'll see today I suspect. :-)
|
It isn't just gay rights on the agenda for these people, even contraception is a target for the future.
This is why I detest religion, despite (Or more accurately because of) my Catholic upbringing. People are free to believe in whatever ancient fantasy they want to, but they are not content with that. They have to try and impose their own values on everyone else too, whether that is by beheading unbelievers or imposing legislation that makes it impossible to live in a way they themselves don't regard as appropriate.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sun 3 Jul 22 at 13:08
|
|
I think a lot of it is back to states rights vs federal government. Easier to divide and conquer i suppose. Many feel in the fly over states that they want nothing to do with any trendy agenda but happy for the east/west coast to have whatever rules they like.
|
|
...but surely ROR you are only doing the same... I do agree though.
|
>> ...but surely ROR you are only doing the same... I do agree though.
>>
How do you ,make that out? People are quite rightly free to believe in whatever they want, provided they keep it among themselves and don't try to dictate what the rest of us do or don't do.
If anybody disagrees with abortion that's fine, don't have one then.
|
|
Because you want them to behave and live in the same way that you do.
|
No, He's saying he doesent want them to force him to live the way they do.
Anyone can have beliefs, but dont preach or force them on others.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Jul 22 at 08:03
|
>>
>> Anyone can have beliefs, but dont preach or force them on others.
>>
Hmm. I wonder where we draw the line in allowing other people to do what they believe to be acceptable, but perhaps we find unacceptable - or vice versa?
Halal slaughter?
Corporal punishment?
Capital punishment?
Aborting healthy fetus up to full term?
Using mental patients for medical experiments?
There are, of course, lots more examples.
|
>> Hmm. I wonder where we draw the line in allowing other people to do what
>> they believe to be acceptable, but perhaps we find unacceptable - or vice versa?
>>
>> Halal slaughter?
>> Corporal punishment?
>> Capital punishment?
>> Aborting healthy fetus up to full term?
>> Using mental patients for medical experiments?
>>
>> There are, of course, lots more examples.
Whataboutery, as Simon would say. Trolling, as I call it. We aren't talking about animals, or sanctions on criminals (which include loss of liberty). The last two do not, I am fairly confident, have popular support.
|
>> Whataboutery, as Simon would say. Trolling, as I call it.
>>
Proves my point. A valid argument on one hand or trolling on another?
At what point would you draw the line for aborting a healthy foetus?
|
>> >> Whataboutery, as Simon would say. Trolling, as I call it.
>> >>
>>
>> Proves my point. A valid argument on one hand or trolling on another?
>>
>> At what point would you draw the line for aborting a healthy foetus?
In short I wouldn't, as a male old duffer with no expertise on the subject.
|
>> At what point would you draw the line for aborting a healthy foetus?
UK law, or at least that in GB, provides such a limit based on viability. IIRC it was originally 28 weeks and now 24. Science etc may drive it lower over time.
All of which seems about right to me.
Although campaigners make much of late abortion the reality is that most are much earlier. Some States have either outright bans that might even capture an IUD or are so tight that the woman may not know she's pregnant.
Current UK legislation for abortion goes back to Victoria. The Abortion Act 1967, a Private Members Bill per David Steel, provides, in effect, a statutory defence.
|
>> Halal slaughter?
>> Corporal punishment?
>> Capital punishment?
>> Aborting healthy fetus up to full term?
>> Using mental patients for medical experiments?
You've conveniently ranked those in something resembling an order of seriousness.
Halal slaughter can be, and for the most part is, done humanely. Kosher less so but we're more squeamish about taking on Judaism than Islam.
Corporal punishment when slapping your own child is one thing. Slippering and caning at school less so. Birching as was available to the Manx Courts until relatively recently would still see a significant minority in support. Same with capital punishment.
|
>> You've conveniently ranked those in something resembling an order of seriousness.
>>
You're quite right. I did- very roughly.
I was going to include circumcision, but decided not to.
|
>> I was going to include circumcision, but decided not to.
Stop beating around the bush and cut to the chase Duncan.
|
>> No, He's saying he doesent want them to force him to live the way they
>> do.
>>
>> Anyone can have beliefs, but dont preach or force them on others.
>>
That's exactly what I said, I'm surprised anyone could misinterpret it.
|
>> Because you want them to behave and live in the same way that you do.
>>
This what I meant about treating the two sides of the argument as somehow equivalent.
I don't think they are - one is about choice, the other is about legislating against a freedom that 60% of Americans want and which they have broadly had for 50 years.
I accept this is nuanced and broadly "the left" tend to think they have they have the moral high ground in every argument, but the same people who want this could well go on to roll back gay rights and marriage, enforcing the sodomy laws (which Texas never repealed but only put in abeyance under Federal compulsion), and even, as has been mentioned, contraception. hence my comparison with the Taliban
Oddly, while a poll says 24% of white evangelical adults think abortion should be legal i.e. permitted in most cases, 56% of Catholics think so.
Around 2/3 of women are pro choice, and looking at opinion by age the figure for women of child bearing age will be somewhat higher.
This is basically old, conservative, white men restricting the rights of women, so add misogyny to the charge sheet. Reductio ad talibanum.
Of course they don't say it's religious but it clearly is, which as I understand it is actually contrary to the constitution anyway.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/
|
>> Of course they don't say it's religious but it clearly is, which as I understand
>> it is actually contrary to the constitution anyway.
Separation between church and state is the next constitutional battle ground to be taken up by the supreme court and has already started.
|
The US is about the same size as Europe - and US states are as diverse in history, culture, climate, and prosperity as Europe. It is unrealistic to assume they share common views on all issues.
Part of the problem arises as the Donald managed to stuff the US Supreme Court with his appointees. The US the Supreme Court has far ore power than the UK equivalent.
Those in power are only comfortable with the "democratic" argument only when it aligns with their views - eg: Brexit 52:48. They happily ignore opinion when it conflicts - ~75% of MPs oppose assisted dying for the terminally ill, despite support of ~75% of the general public.
A purely personal view - the state should only legislate to protect the wider community or individuals from the selfish actions of others, not that which is wholly or substantially a personal choice. Except in the land of the free where it is OK to impose personal views upon others!!
|
BBC Radio Profile Saturday evening 7p.m. featured the USA Supreme Court judge. A little surprising and not all flattering!
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018wst
|
>> BBC Radio Profile Saturday evening 7p.m. featured the USA Supreme Court judge. A little surprising
>> and not all flattering!
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018wst
Clarence Thomas, appointed by Bush 1.
I'd assumed at first it was the newest appointment.
|
|
Alito is the real righty, he makes Trump look like a liberal snow flake.
|
>> and US states are as
>> diverse in history, culture, climate, and prosperity as Europe. It is unrealistic to assume they
>> share common views on all issues.
In reality, the American Civil War, was not, and never has been, resolved.
|
|
Thats going to be an interesting legal and constitutional conundrum.
|
It's what happens when you stack the Supreme Court with people prepared to construct a tottering pile of piffle to support a decision that they have already made.
It's quite incredible to me that all 9 justices profess one religion or another which in my somewhat idealised world would make them unsuitable for the job. There are 6 Catholics, 2 protestants (one of whom is Ketanji Jackson) and 1 Jew.
I only mention Jackson because I recall her being asked at the hearings and she replied that she was a non-denominational protestant. However she is not as far as anyone has been able to find out associated with any church so it's probably the US version of "put me down as CofE", and she probably thought that is she said "I'm not superstitious" then she wouldn't get the job.
The official doctrine of Catholicism is to oppose abortion on all but essential grounds (such as the necessity to remove the womb to save a woman's life) but I haven't seen any discussion as to whether the Catholic justices should recuse themselves.
Religion and justice are incompatible.
|
>>A purely personal view - the state should only legislate to protect the wider community or individuals from the selfish actions of others, not that which is wholly or substantially a personal choice.
So if one thinks that an "individual" is created at conception then I take it by your view the state should legislate to protect such an individual from the selfish actions of the mother?
|
>> >>
>>
>> So if one thinks that an "individual" is created at conception then I take it
>> by your view the state should legislate to protect such an individual from the selfish
>> actions of the mother?
>>
>>
A woman has the right to full control over her own body and if she does not wish to carry, give birth to and support a child for at least eighteen years she should be free to terminate the pregnancy. Anyone who thinks differently is free to carry on and give birth themselves.
Using your argument you could say that a life is potentially created at the point of ejeculation and ban contraception and masturbation.
The Catholic church would love that.
|
>> Using your argument you could say that a life is potentially created at the point of ejaculation and ban contraception and masturbation.
... an asinine comment showing no understanding of basic biology. The argument does not assume this at all. The individual only has the necessary components to be one at conception.
tinyurl.com/2ym56dkr (redirects to www.psychologytoday.com)
{link shortened to restore correct page width}
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 6 Jul 22 at 10:43
|
The point at which life is created is a fair question.
Personal view is that the UK principle of capacity to survive outside the womb (albeit with support) at ~23 weeks seems entirely sensible. At conception, and for many weeks afterwards, it is no more than a collection of cells.
I also accept that others may hold a different view. It is why personal choices should prevail, not mandated by the state.
|
Agreed, you take a stance, supported by medical opinion, about where life outside the womb is possible, and decree thats the legal definition of life.
Up to that point its up to the mother and mother alone about termination, past that point its by medical required intervention only.
Doctors acting as gods I hear you say? No but they do, literally, hold life or death in their hands on a daily basis. As many of us can testify (even tho specialist surgeons are still the most arrogant obnoxious individuals on earth)
|
>>
>> Up to that point its up to the mother and mother alone about termination
>>
Whilst my morals are against termination, I agree with that comment.
>>
>> Doctors acting as gods I hear you say? No but they do, literally, hold life
>> or death in their hands on a daily basis.
>>
There are a strict set of rules to which they must abide. But yes, they do and from what I know, not too long ago a situation where there were too many very ill patients needing surgery and not enough theatre capacity, leading to deaths greatly saddened Miss Z.
>> (even tho specialist surgeons are still the most arrogant obnoxious individuals on earth)
>>
Rubbish.
|
>> The point at which life is created is a fair question.
>>
Most legislatures have used some sort of viability assumption but it's easy to see the problem with that. Eventually somebody will grow a baby outside the womb, meanwhile the viability point will shift.
I don't think I am entitled to pontificate on what it should be but this is interesting. An archived page, don't know how old, from the BBC website.
www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml
|
>> some sort of viability assumption
I agree with your thought process, but..
I think it's more complicated than that. Human babies are altricial - meaning that they cannot survive on their own without the support of another human.
See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precociality_and_altriciality
So the unborn rely on the mother for support up to birth AND after birth.
If one uses the argument of lack of viability (on its own) for termination within the womb, then you can also make a case for babies to be killed - or any disabled person for that matter.
|
Has any human being the capability to survive without the support of other human beings? Who produced your food, built your house, etc.
At the end of the day all morality is arbitrary. There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong. Morality is just a the prevailing view of the dominant culture of the time . The Romans believed that exposing unwanted babies to die was perfectly OK. You would now be charged with murder.
|
>> The Romans believed that exposing unwanted babies to die was
>> perfectly OK. You would now be charged with murder.
>>
And not too long ago many believed and some still do that homosexuals have no right to live, people of different religions should be murdered and slavery and segregation were great ideas.
I would say morals improve as we improve, but of course, in times of stress they fall back (war, famine, pestilence).
|
>> I would say morals improve as we improve, but of course, in times of stress
>> they fall back (war, famine, pestilence).
>>
Do you then believe then that there are absolute standards of right and wrong? If so where do those rules come from? Who laid them down?
|
>> Do you then believe then that there are absolute standards of right and wrong?
I think they vary according to your chances of getting caught.
|
Or indeed if you are in a position to impose your will on others
Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight,
But Roaring Bill,who killed him, thought it right.
|
>>I think it's more complicated than that
And I agree - I was pointing out the first problem with an arbitrary viability rule. And declined to propose a solution.
Individual cases and circumstances matter. Difficult to formulate hard and fast rules for that. In reality it has never been a binary question although absolutist 'pro-lifers' necessarily see it that way.
The best solution to any practical problem is nearly always the best compromise.
As the BBC essay ends "Vagueness is a virtue".
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 6 Jul 22 at 13:21
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precociality_and_altriciality
>>
>> So the unborn rely on the mother for support up to birth AND after birth.
Not really, they can and do survive after being surgically separated from the womb surviving and thriving by medical intervention and no maternal support of any kind. 21 weeks I think is the youngest ever. A 131 day premature baby would not have survived with just its mothers support.
Mental and social development has nothing to do with this particular argument.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Jul 22 at 13:26
|
Yes but the altricial argument is that they do need some support. Here you mention medical intervention is needed. It wasn't about specifically needing the mother. It's just that they cannot survive on their own - nothing to do with mental and social development.
The other person mentioned that we all need someone else in order to survive. That isn't actually the case. It is beneficial but not necessary.
|
Morality is not fixed either over time or within different social and cultural groups. It is a set of standards which different societies determine to be "right".
There are some standards upon which there is fairly general agreement - theft, murder, respect for others. Issues which have no clear social, cultural or practical majority cannot be a moral standard which societies determine to be right.
Abortion law is one such - there is no common view of what is moral or acceptable. The debate ranges from conception where a few cells have the potential to grow to a fully functioning person, and when that collection of cells becomes capable of independent "life".
It must therefore be a matter of personal belief and individual beliefs respected. The law can only reflect a broadly acceptable compromise backed by some reasoned evidence, not a philosophical discussion of the meaning of life (on which there is no clear consensus.
Last edited by: Terry on Wed 6 Jul 22 at 17:23
|
Americans - A race of Aliens? - sooty123
