Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 http://www.newsweek.com/abortion-rates-halve-rexas-travel-miles-clinic-545370?rx=us Apparently President Trump plans to stop funding International Planned Parenthood on Sunday, the anniversary of Roe. V Wade http://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/20/president-donald-trump-will-sign-executive-order-sunday-to-defund-intentional-planned-parenthood/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÆƵ– Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Wat. The only thing that not having an accessible abortion clinic does is force people to get unsafe abortions. That's honestly really dumb imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Wat. The only thing that not having an accessible abortion clinic does is force people to get unsafe abortions. That's honestly really dumb imo. Read the second link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 This is the abortion thread all over again. 0 tolerance. You have one, and only one chance not to screw this up. I'm moving it to debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 This is the abortion thread all over again. 0 tolerance. You have one, and only one chance not to screw this up. I'm moving it to debates.It was honestly more a current events topic actually. Not going into the merits of why he did or didn't do it. Just wanted to inform. Please move back to general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÆƵ– Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Read the second link That site is biased af bruh. If you can find an unbiased source I might listen. Like I said, if abortion becomes inaccessible, it would force people who do want abortions to resort to unsafe alternates or an unwanted and possibly unsafe birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 That site is biased af bruh. If you can find an unbiased source I might listen. Like I said, if abortion becomes inaccessible, it would force people who do want abortions to resort to unsafe alternates or an unwanted and possibly unsafe birth. Unbais news doesn't exist. Declaration of Independence promises every American the right to life before liberty actually. So while Mother's life should remain a valid exception, little else should. No, I'm not saying all fetuses are life, that's a debate that I'm not eager to get into here, but the period of time which we can incubate and grow a fetus outside the mother's womb has increased in the last decades since roe. I think the compromise position should be a dynamic cutoff based the scientific point where we can save the child As someone who IS pro-life, having to bargain with what I consider life is personally chilling, but I guess that's where we are today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÆƵ– Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 No, I'm not saying all fetuses are life, that's a debate that I'm not eager to get into here, but the period of time which we can incubate and grow a fetus outside the mother's womb has increased in the last decades since roe. I think the compromise position should be a dynamic cutoff based the scientific point where we can save the child This is the most reasonable I've ever heard you be. I'm proud of you. While yes ectogenesis and the other things that can make fetuses grow outside a womb is a good alternative to direct abortion, for the time being we don't have the full technology to fully utilize it. So, I believe abortion (usually before a central nervous system has formed is preferable) is the best option until the alternatives are fully developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 No, I'm not saying all fetuses are life, that's a debate that I'm not eager to get into here, but the period of time which we can incubate and grow a fetus outside the mother's womb has increased in the last decades since roe. I think the compromise position should be a dynamic cutoff based the scientific point where we can save the child This is the current US abortion law: Roe vs Wade initially restricted things based on trimester, like a lot of other nations in the world do. But in 1992, the Supreme Court filled essentially an addendum to Roe vs Wade in the case Casey vs Planned Parenthood. Because the Supreme Court had shifted a little since Roe Vs Wade, and was more divided, no majority opinion could be found. Instead a proposal by Justice Kennedy, Souter and supported by O'Connel, retained Roe Vs Wade with the addendum that instead of trimesters marking the point of legality it became: "Women have the right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability and to do so without undue interference from the State" where viability is this dynamic cutoff. So the compromise position is already a point of law in the US. Which one would have hoped you'd be aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 This is the current US abortion law: Roe vs Wade initially restricted things based on trimester, like a lot of other nations in the world do. But in 1992, the Supreme Court filled essentially an addendum to Roe vs Wade in the case Casey vs Planned Parenthood. Because the Supreme Court had shifted a little since Roe Vs Wade, and was more divided, no majority opinion could be found. Instead a proposal by Justice Kennedy, Souter and supported by O'Connel, retained Roe Vs Wade with the addendum that instead of trimesters marking the point of legality it became: "Women have the right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability and to do so without undue interference from the State" where viability is this dynamic cutoff. So the compromise position is already a point of law in the US. Which one would have hoped you'd be aware of.Viability isn't enforced Tom. Otherwise we wouldn't even have such thing as legal partial birth abortions For example, 23 week babies can survive. Dems won't pass a 20 week ban. Neither will SCOTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Viability isn't enforced Tom. Otherwise we wouldn't even have such thing as legal partial birth abortions For example, 23 week babies can survive. Dems won't pass a 20 week ban. Neither will SCOTUS That's because of the second part of Casey vs Planned Parenthood: "the State can restrict the abortion procedure post viability, so long as the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health" The state 'can', it does not have to enforce the deadline at viability. Many would argue that the Supreme Court enforcing a federal ban post viability would be an overreach of federal power relative to state power, because views on the subject vary per state. Your compromise does exist, it's just only by a state by state basis. Also partial birth abortions is not a good justification for stronger abortion laws. They themselves were only about 0.17% of abortions in the year 2000, and in 2003 Partial Birth Abortions (The specific method) were banned at a federal level by The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, and then upheld in 2007 in Gonzales v Cahart. The procedure is still used in the case of miscarrages, but alternative methods of late stage fetal abortion are used in cases of nessecity; usually inducing fetal death or miscarrage before removal. Late Stage abortions (I.E. after the first trimester) remain a matter of sensationalism in abortion discussions to me, because the majority of abortions, in essentially every nation in the world occur within the first trimester (I.E. 0-12 weeks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 That's because of the second part of Casey vs Planned Parenthood: "the State can restrict the abortion procedure post viability, so long as the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health" The state 'can', it does not have to enforce the deadline at viability. Many would argue that the Supreme Court enforcing a federal ban post viability would be an overreach of federal power relative to state power, because views on the subject vary per state. Your compromise does exist, it's just only by a state by state basis. Also partial birth abortions is not a good justification for stronger abortion laws. They themselves were only about 0.17% of abortions in the year 2000, and in 2003 Partial Birth Abortions (The specific method) were banned at a federal level by The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, and then upheld in 2007 in Gonzales v Cahart. The procedure is still used in the case of miscarrages, but alternative methods of late stage fetal abortion are used in cases of nessecity; usually inducing fetal death or miscarrage before removal. Late Stage abortions (I.E. after the first trimester) remain a matter of sensationalism in abortion discussions to me, because the majority of abortions, in essentially every nation in the world occur within the first trimester (I.E. 0-12 weeks).That's about a thousand three hundred kids murdered in cold blood. You call it sensationalism, I find the loss of even a single life repulsive. The fact remains that the second part of Casey would not be in line with a dynamic limit. And deferring to the 10th amendment isn't an acceptable answer when you're violating the spirit of the declaration of independence. Many would argue that roe v. wade was an overreach. Case in point, the march for life protests in the US to this day remain the largest gatherings around the nationThis is the most reasonable I've ever heard you be. I'm proud of you. While yes ectogenesis and the other things that can make fetuses grow outside a womb is a good alternative to direct abortion, for the time being we don't have the full technology to fully utilize it. So, I believe abortion (usually before a central nervous system has formed is preferable) is the best option until the alternatives are fully developed. You shouldn't be; my "reasonable" compromise is me signing off on murder. To you, who I assume, doesn't consider it such- It's not wrong, but for me I'm doing nothing short of selling out the most innocent of lives to save a few I can. Make no mistake, I would want nothing short of a complete ban. But President Trump only has 1 SCOTUS spot to fill for the time being. So I'll have to bide my time CNS? Ok, that's 16 weeks. Dems won't even let us pass a 20 week ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 That's about a thousand three hundred kids murdered in cold blood. You call it sensationalism, I find the loss of even a single life repulsive. The fact remains that the second part of Casey would not be in line with a dynamic limit. And deferring to the 10th amendment isn't an acceptable answer when you're violating the spirit of the declaration of independence. Many would argue that roe v. wade was an overreach. Case in point, the march for life protests in the US to this day remain the largest gatherings around the nation That was in the year 2000. The total number of abortions has dropped since then by about a quarter in 2013. (And 2000 was only about half as many as 10 years prior, so the total number is trending consitently downwards). If we look at 2013, 98.7% of abortions occured before 20 weeks. And 91.7% of those were first trimester. I can't find a breakdown for how many of these late stage were non-medical nessecity or whatever, but you know, numbers are still consitent with. Well the spirit of the declaration of independance was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in equal measure I would assume, which means I would assume that gives the rights of the mother (I.E. the liberty over her own body) equal weight as the life of the feutus in this scenario. You can't use the argument of 'the spirit of the declaration of independance' for one side of the argument if said spirit includes both sides of the argument. Which it does in this case. Yes, many probably would. But one should not correct an overreach with an equal overreach of federal power, which what a ban would be because it provides precident to minimize ones personal liberty, and as such the compromise would not be a dynamic limit but instead to defer the decsion to the states and states alone. I will maintain it's sensationalism because it always has been the minority of cases. And that it is thus given undue amounts of focus by both sides of the argument. Hence sensationalism; it's paints the minority of cases as being the the majority for the sake of nfluencing public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Life comes first Tom, if they wanted it to be all equal, they would have had it in alphabetical order. Life is more important than liberty. One can be regained, the other cannot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Life comes first Tom, if they wanted it to be all equal, they would have had it in alphabetical order. Life is more important than liberty. One can be regained, the other cannot Semantics: The rights are considered unalienable - I.E. they cannot be taken away or denied. This alone implies a lack of heirarchy, because the very existance of a heirarchy amongst these three rights would mean they are not unalienable, that one can be taken away for the sake of another. Furthermore this is the declaration of Independance, penned by the same minds that wrote the Bill of Rights, one of the most comprehensive and far reaching legal documents ever devised. If they intended a heirarchy of these these three rights, it would be explicitly mentioned. Just as (To my knowledge) one cannot assign higher weight to an ammendment to the consitution because of it's numerical number, one thusly cannot assign a greater weight to life over liberty because of verbal placement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Semantics: The rights are considered unalienable - I.E. they cannot be taken away or denied. This alone implies a lack of heirarchy, because the very existance of a heirarchy amongst these three rights would mean they are not unalienable, that one can be taken away for the sake of another. Furthermore this is the declaration of Independance, penned by the same minds that wrote the Bill of Rights, one of the most comprehensive and far reaching legal documents ever devised. If they intended a heirarchy of these these three rights, it would be explicitly mentioned. Just as (To my knowledge) one cannot assign higher weight to an ammendment to the consitution because of it's numerical number, one thusly cannot assign a greater weight to life over liberty because of verbal placement.Funny you mention that, in the bill of rights, it seems the further down you go, the less protected and sacred it seems to the public. But I digress. What happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable object? Why does the liberty of the mother (I also take issue with this statement) have power over the life of the child (and you likely take issue of this one) We're at an impasse. The viability standard is the best compromise, unless you're willing to come to CNS or heartbeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 I don't take issue with the phase 'life of the child'. Even if I am pro-choice, I still acknowledge that there comes a point where the feutus is alive. I don't like the idea of abortion, I just think it's nessecary to modern society, and that issues of liberty are incredibly important. We already have legal parralels that give ones right to liberty as being higher than another's right to life: The organ transport scenario; Neither the state nor the federal government have the right to force or compel another person to donate an organ to another in need, despite the fact that refusal in this scenario would not uphold anothers right to life. The logic is then transferable to this situation. The state or the federal government cannot deny a woman access to abortion on the grounds of preservation of life because we have established legal precident for liberty out-ranking life. I.E. the basis of the Roe vs Wade decision. It is an argument that ignores the issue of if the feutus alive or not entirely; It's obviously not a perfect parralel, nor should be an absolute, but it's a wonderfully envisioned defense in this case. The counterpoint I made earlier was intended to show that you can't use the 'Spirit of the declaration of independance' as an argument in the issue, because you can't come to any conclusion or compromise that doesn't violate at least one aspect of it. It's a wonderful ideal, but it's impractical to achieve in this case. So I do not stand by it for the sake of the arguments I propose. I would argue the more fair compromise is a dynamic scale based on viability up to a point; I.E. first trimester abortion remains legal regardless of the medical advances involved. And then the level to which the scale is enforced varies on a state by state basis. A purely dynamic scale will eventually render the womans liberty superficial, which means it is not a compromise, it's just a delayed victory. Viability additionally must be based around whatever method of keeping the fetus alive being readily and affordably available in the given state; No using a fringe study as justification to change the defintionof viability, and then after it's changed keeping the technology from the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Well that's the point...the earlier we can keep the fetus alive, the less right the mother has to terminate it. It's not just "her body" then, it's the child's life. Can't stop science. The organ transplant case is poor. You didn't engage in activities that would result in the other person needing the transplant in most cases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 NEWS FLASH: Making it more difficult for women to get safe abortions lowers numbers of safe abortions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 NEWS FLASH: Making it more difficult for women to get safe abortions lowers numbers of safe abortionsPresident Trump is willing to meet y'all half-way and make the NY style free contraception laws nationwide Demand creates its own supply http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/302232-nearly-13000-late-term-abortions-happen-every-year-a Sigh, I was wrong, it's not 1300, it's 13000 Sickening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Well that's the point...the earlier we can keep the fetus alive, the less right the mother has to terminate it. It's not just "her body" then, it's the child's life. Can't stop science. The organ transplant case is poor. You didn't engage in activities that would result in the other person needing the transplant in most cases Except the issue of whose rights have priority will still exist; If one says then that the feutus at conception has full rights, then one should surely prosecute those who unknowingly do things that endanger that life as child endangerment? And that second point should be irrelevant in an argument of sanctity of life. Which is what I would call pro-life as primarily; An argument that the sanctity of life triumphs over all other considerations. If it were the case, responsibility should be irrelevant in any situation; so long as one does not endanger there own life in the process, they (And by extention the state) should seek to prolong life as long as possible, because it is sacred. But since the state does not, and cannot compel sanctity of life in this case, it should not be able to compel it in the case of abortion. Responsiblity should thus be irrelevant to the argument of lifes sanctity. Responsibility only matters if it an issue of needing to assign blame. That the mother (Or father) made a mistake, and should thus be forced to accept responsibility and deal with the consequences. But that is a seperate argument to the sanctity of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Except the issue of whose rights have priority will still exist; If one says then that the feutus at conception has full rights, then one should surely prosecute those who unknowingly do things that endanger that life as child endangerment? And that second point should be irrelevant in an argument of sanctity of life. Which is what I would call pro-life as primarily; An argument that the sanctity of life triumphs over all other considerations. If it were the case, responsibility should be irrelevant in any situation; so long as one does not endanger there own life in the process, they (And by extention the state) should seek to prolong life as long as possible, because it is sacred. But since the state does not, and cannot compel sanctity of life in this case, it should not be able to compel it in the case of abortion. Responsiblity should thus be irrelevant to the argument of lifes sanctity. Responsibility only matters if it an issue of needing to assign blame. That the mother (Or father) made a mistake, and should thus be forced to accept responsibility and deal with the consequences. But that is a seperate argument to the sanctity of life.Correct, if you get an illegal abortion, I am strongly in favor of the AG prosecuting you for 1st Degree murder with the goal being life w/o parole. Wrong here though, the state SHOULD prolong life to their best ability. You know I strongly support Social Security and Medicare as well as oppose euthanasia...I'm afraid I'm consistent on the matter Not so much blame as cause and effect. I do think that we should offer free contraception, but beyond that there is a small risk, that you should be willing to take if you're that desperate to have sex. In any case, a good portion of unwanted pregnancies occur due to unprotected sex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 No, I don't mean abortions. I mean an extention of that; Drinking alcohol before knowing you are pregnant despite being so would be child endangerment, as would taking drugs, as would whatever else has links to damage in eutero - Because the child is now given full rights to life before birth, it means that also means any actions of endangerment would be prosecutable as if the child were alive doing so. I can't imagine that will ever be the case because of the needless amount of court cases and jail sentance that might generate, which would undermine the idea that the child has full rights. If the child does not have full rights, then the full rights of the mother should take precedence. It's a round about way of arguing the point. Your personal viewpoint is irrelevant to that argument though. Even if the state SHOULD prolong life, it doesn't. The organ transplant case is a clear example as to when the state does not preserve life. Because the state does not currently preserve life to the fullest possible extent, even to the point of depriving others of liberty to do so, there is legal leway to justify abortion being illegal in spite of the idea of 'sanctity of life'. Your consitency on the issue or whatever is irrelevant to the point. If you think the state SHOULD, that's fine, but it's not a dissmissal of the argument within the current legal structure. Yes, and the majority of abortions also occur amongst women in there early 20's; An age at which people are still discovering this sheet out for themselves, where it's still foriegn, where it's still clumsy. Mistakes happen, and people are going to funk, because it's an extention of a biological imperitive. I agree that there should be free contraceptives, but that there should also be comprehensive sexual education covering everything from the mechanics of sex and protection to the emotional parts of it. But the solution to the issue of unprotected sex isn't, and shouldn't be 'Oh just funk less', it's backwards in my eyes. It's no better than abstinance only sex ed. At a bare minimum you should be preparing people properly for sex to decrease the number of mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 The study’s authors stipulated that “limitations include that official statistics may underestimate out-of-state abortions and not capture abortions among women who self-induced or traveled to Mexico for care.” This thread should be titled "abortion rates in a particular state halve if closest clinic within the state is over 100 miles away, not accounting for out-of-state travel" http://www.trappeddocumentary.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.