16 May 22
@sh76 saidBS. Of course, it's about a women's right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy. Artificially declaring a non-viable fetus has some "right to life" (which BTW not even the draft opinion does) is simply denying that actual right.
Making abortion about women's rights is sophistry.
Most of us agree that people have a right to privacy.
All of us agree that people have a right to life.
I imagine all of us agree that the right to life of one person outweighs the right to privacy of another.
So, the only question is when the fetus' right to life kicks in.
I hope we can all agree that it happens ...[text shortened]... realize that it's not about the woman's rights. It's about the fetus' right to life or lack thereof.
16 May 22
@sleepyguy saidNo, a women has no obligation to a non-viable fetus. To make such a claim is to eviscerate her right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy.
Of course I do, but there are two bodies involved, and one has an obligation to the other.
16 May 22
@no1marauder saidWhy?
No, a women has no obligation to a non-viable fetus. To make such a claim is to eviscerate her right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy.
You don't believe parents are obligated to protect and care for their offspring?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
16 May 22
@sleepyguy saidAs defined by law,
Why?
You don't believe parents are obligated to protect and care for their offspring?
they are not yet offspring....
16 May 22
@no1marauder saidWhat the draft opinion does is call into question the court's drawing of the magic "viability" line in the first place, and states plainly that no right to abortion is implicit in the Constitution. Whatever will you do without the rhetorical device of the magic line?
BS. Of course, it's about a women's right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy. Artificially declaring a non-viable fetus has some "right to life" (which BTW not even the draft opinion does) is simply denying that actual right.
16 May 22
@sleepyguy saidYou don't have "offspring" until birth.
Why?
You don't believe parents are obligated to protect and care for their offspring?
While I would concede some obligation to a viable fetus (after all it can exist independently of the mother), I don't believe a woman has any obligation to a non-viable fetus which can't exist independently. The recognition of such a claim would justify all types of restrictions on pregnant woman during the early stages of pregnancy perhaps including restrictions on diet, exercise requirements and who knows what else. This would make a mockery of the concept of bodily sovereignty/autonomy.
16 May 22
@no1marauder saidWHY?
While I would concede some obligation to a viable fetus (after all it can exist independently of the mother), I don't believe a woman has any obligation to a non-viable fetus which can't exist independently.
Why does the mere fact that it can not yet live independently erase all obligation to it? The answer cannot simply be "because then monstrous things might follow."
16 May 22
@sleepyguy saidWhat part of "bodily sovereignty/autonomy" don't you get?
WHY?
Why does the mere fact that it can not yet live independently erase all obligation to it? The answer cannot simply be "because then monstrous things might follow."
Yes, it would be "monstrous" to restrict such in the ways I have outlined. But it would be perfectly permissible under your idea that a woman "owes" some obligation to a non-person existing within the confines of her body.
@sleepyguy saidViability isn't a "magic line"; it is a philosophically necessary one in a Natural Rights framework. Nature is what decided a non-viable fetus cannot exist physically independently of the pregnant woman and thus has no Natural Rights. Clearly, the artificial creation of any such "rights" would render the woman's right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy nugatory as the examples I have presented show.
What the draft opinion does is call into question the court's drawing of the magic "viability" line in the first place, and states plainly that no right to abortion is implicit in the Constitution. Whatever will you do without the rhetorical device of the magic line?
And I hate to break it to you and right wing SCOTUS judges, but the Constitution did not create and it certainly does not limit Natural Rights.
16 May 22
@no1marauder saidThat is a non-answer.
What part of "bodily sovereignty/autonomy" don't you get?
Yes, it would be "monstrous" to restrict such in the ways I have outlined. But it would be perfectly permissible under your idea that a woman "owes" some obligation to a non-person existing within the confines of her body.
You have failed at the same point you always do.
Oh well.
@sleepyguy said"It shall be a felony if a pregnant woman does not eat a green salad every day from her child's conception as the Legislature finds it would reckless endanger her unborn child if she does not".
WHY?
Why does the mere fact that it can not yet live independently erase all obligation to it? The answer cannot simply be "because then monstrous things might follow."
Explain why this law would not be upheld under your "obligation to a non-viable fetus" standard.
16 May 22
@sleepyguy saidHardly. You've merely adopted your usual "hold your breath until you turn blue" style of argument.
That is a non-answer.
You have failed at the same point you always do.
Oh well.
16 May 22
@no1marauder
You are answering the question with a question. A non-answer. The same non-answer referred to in the draft opinion:
"Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,” it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on previability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters like no1marauder have found it hard to defend Roe's reasoning."
Cheeky of Alito to call you out like that.
@sleepyguy saidIn fact, the draft opinion explicitly allows States the option of permitting post-viability abortions even absent concerns regarding the mother's life or health:
What the draft opinion does is call into question the court's drawing of the magic "viability" line in the first place, and states plainly that no right to abortion is implicit in the Constitution. Whatever will you do without the rhetorical device of the magic line?
"In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized." at p. 31
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473
So he does not assert that a fetus has any rights at all, at any stage of development.
@sleepyguy saidActually, I've already explained my basis i.e. in Natural Rights. In case you missed it:
@no1marauder
You are answering the question with a question. A non-answer. The same non-answer referred to in the draft opinion:
"Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “ ...[text shortened]... der[/i] have found it hard to defend Roe's reasoning."
Cheeky of Alito to call you out like that.
no1: "Viability isn't a "magic line"; it is a philosophically necessary one in a Natural Rights framework. Nature is what decided a non-viable fetus cannot exist physically independently of the pregnant woman and thus has no Natural Rights. Clearly, the artificial creation of any such "rights" would render the woman's right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy nugatory as the examples I have presented show.
And I hate to break it to you and right wing SCOTUS judges, but the Constitution did not create and it certainly does not limit Natural Rights."
Read my last post; Alito's argument would allow States to permit post-viability abortions irrespective of any danger to the mother's life or health.