🇳🇱
My thoughts on the overrulling of Roe v. Wade
Generally speaking I do think the overrulling was a bad idea **as is**. Ideally if we kept abortion protections at the federal level it should have never existed as a simple supreme court precedence. I would be all for overturning the supreme court ruling and instead replacing it with an actually amendment protecting abortions.
That said any such amendment I would also leave to be pretty loose. Namely I'd be ok with any bans/restrictions on abortions post 15 weeks conception but prior to that abortions should be strictly permitted. In addiction I'd make it a requirement that all abortions <15 weeks after contraception **must** be performed regardless if the person can pay for it up front or not. We would also need to make access to pregnancy tests free.
Since I dont see the above happening I cant in my right mind support the overturning of roe v wade, as much as I do prefer reducing federal laws and oversight... this one is just too close to a violation of natural rights to me.
Why 15 weeks?
We would also need to make access to pregnancy tests free.
Last I heard you can get pregnancy tests at dollar stores
@realcaseyrollins The line where it becomes murky IMO is once brain cells start forming and there is some degree of cognition. 15 weeks is about where that plays out.
Dollar pregnany tests arent enough. If we want to grossly restrict a woman's window for abortions we must also provide all the tools to make sure any woman, regardless of income, has the ability to detect pregnancy eary and act on it as she wishes.
@freemo
there being braincells implies cognition? that is a very hard strecht, to call some neurons brains cells.
regardless. in my humble opinion, you still are reproducing the problem: the states control over people's body.
the lack of access to health care is cause for more later term abortions than anything else. if that worries you access to reproductive health services for free should be a priority for you. and not just tests or abortions. free condoms and more.
regardless of the state of the law, there have always been people proving cheap or free afordable health services to others. because some humans like helping others, even if it means putting themselves at risk. it is a shame that it gets criminilized.
@PiedraFiera No brrain cells does not garuntee self-awareness or any sort of complex thought. It **does** represent some degree of cognition however. They produce signals and process data.
The point is **no one** can define the moment that life becomes smart enough that all of a sudden it has rights. Trying to define it leads to the slippery slope where people with mental disorders are assumed to not have any more rights that a cow, which doesnt work.
What brain cells mean is it is the begining of the grey area. Without brain cells we can say with certainy there is no awarness of any kind. Once brain cells are present any certainty goes out the window.
So picking a 15 week period seems to be the best all around (assuming the above considerations from my last post). It ensures the woman has a right to abortion and a window with which to decide it. It also assures the fetus has a right to life as well.
As for states control over someones body, that is inevitable no matter what side you sit on. If you are pro-abortion the state is deciding its ok to violate the fetuses right to its own body, if you are anti-abortion you are violating the mother's right. by allowing a 15 week window neither right is violated.
@freemo
You get to the knot of the problem. There are no objective criteria. Different criteria can be set up to serve different ends.
The protection of the fetus is a criteria in itself, that justifies control over people's lives.
If the well being of fetus was the issue, maternal health would be the priority, and that would go beyond pregnancy, it would justify providing free healthcare and other services for all. Institutions complicit with such high rates of maternal death, that normalize access to health restricted to those that can pay, only hypocritically care about the fetus.
@PiedraFiera Yes we must first agree that murdfer is wrong, once that criteria is set then it can be quite objective in what achieves that goal and what does not.
I stated in my OP that many aspects of helathcare must be free for any resolution to be had. So I agree on that regard, healthcare must be a priority along with any decisions made about abortion
@freemo We need not agree. If we are being honest about the fact that we set up our criteria to serve specific needs or goals we need not agree in other areas with others and still set up criteria and plans that serve out shared goals or needs.Even if our values or underlying ideas were to make it impossible for us to agree to any criteria or plan, I think we would at least benefit from an interesting discussion with someone that shares some of our interests.
Decisions about abortion are effectively decisions over some people's bodies. Who should get to decide over someone's life? I argue it is best that whoever is affected should decide, and only them. We may provide them with material benefits or services to influence their choices, but ultimately it should be up to them.
@PiedraFiera So since fetuses are effected by abortion then they should get to decide. How do we enable a fetus to decide? If we argue that they dont get a say because they cant decide then we must likewise allow the murder of any baby for any reason prior to about the age of 4 - 6 (at which point they might be able to make some decision). The logic breaks down quickly.
In my eyes it isnt so complex or even subjective. The goal should be to minimize suffering. The suffering of the fetus needs as much consideration as that of the mother. There is room for disagreement there, but once we agree that the goal is to minimize suffering then most everything eelse falls into place.
@freemo
"How do we enable a fetus to decide?" Let me tell you, as a former fetus myself, I think I know a thing or two. As a fetus, there was no "I" that could decide so there is no enabling it.
The logic breaks down quickly, I agree. "If we argue that they dont get a say because they cant decide then we must likewise allow the murder of any baby.." is a non sequitur. One thing does not follow from the other.
The reason we do not murder the young is very similar to the reason we do not murder others. Because that would be abhorrent.
At least in some cultures.
@PiedraFiera You have memories as a fetus? I doubt you remember what level of awareness you had at all, let alone that you lacked a sense of self.
@freemo
That it the point. The fetus cannot decide. So trying to give it a say is absurd.
@PiedraFiera Whicjh is my point. If we use that logic then it is perfectly ok for mothers to murder their children for the first several years of life as well. So the logic seems to break down the moment you try to apply it.
@freemo The logic breaksdown when you try to apply it, indeed. The suffering of children is something we can attest to. It is not comparable to the suffering of a being for which cognition, awareness and sense of self is debatable.
I mean we CAN compare it, but to what end?
The suffering and free will of pregnant people is something that we can also attest to, so giving it the same value as that of an entity whose status is debatable serves what end?
@PiedraFiera Now you just moved the goal post.. Before it was as you said "The fetus cant decide" now youve determined that somehow you can attest to the awarness and sense of self of a new born yet not aa fetus, totally different criteria. Either set of criteria fail though since you cant determine the self awareness of a new born either, so your right back to the same conflict.
@freemo I am debating your underlying assumptions and logic. The goal posts or criteria are not something I am moving. I am just saying that your criteria do not serve or follow your stated priorities or goals.
The conflict stems from trying to justify control over other people's bodies through false dilemmas and bad assumptions.
@PiedraFiera My stance is quite simple.. Killing a human capable of thought and suffering is immoral. We know that the point that a a human develops thought and it is universally agreed it is wrong to kill them is somewhere between the development of the first brain cell, and the ability for them to articulate their self awareness, which is between about 8 weeks to to 4 years post conception.
Therefore the only time there is no ambiguity and where abortion is clearly ethical is prior to about 8 week (though im willing to extend that out slightly personally). Anything past that is assumption, drawing that line before that makes no assumptions.
In short the **only** time period you can ensure both parties interests are looked out for is in the early periods of pregnancy. Anything later and those assumption you talk about start kicking in.
> There is no universal agreement about what is clearly ethical.
While this is true not everyone **agrees** on a universal definition of ethical that does not in any way imply there is not an objective truth behind what is or is not ethical. IMO I find the objective measure of "ethical" to be a rather easy one define... ethical is any decision which minimizes overall suffering. In other words, the choice which leads to the greatest amount of happiness in the world (or to put it another way, that decision which minimizes the reduction in future happiness).
As far as I am concerned this is the only objefctive valuation of ethical. Beyond that it is debatable what achieves that, but once we define an objective metric it is no longer a subjective subject.
No argument with the rest of your statement though, there are indeed bad actors that do not act towards the definition of ethical as I presented it.
@freemo I do not believe there are objective metrics or valuations there. Suffering and happiness are hard to define or quantify, which makes figuring out which choice optimizes them harder. And they are entangled in ways that makes it all more complex. Suffering at times brings happiness and vice versa. And different situations affect different people differently. I do not think we can get objective when there is clearly so much subjectivity involved.
That suffering and happiness are difficult to define or measure does not mean we are powerless to procure ourselves and others a better society or relations. We can listen to people, and believe them when they say explain how they are affected and make room for that. We can try to avoid or destroy what we know most consistently has caused suffering. We can procure conditions that make room for people to be happy.
> I do not believe there are objective metrics or valuations there. Suffering and happiness are hard to define or quantify, which makes figuring out which choice optimizes them harder.
Being hard to measure an objective quantity does not change the fact that it is objective. Moreover things that are objectively true are quite often hard to measure or predict.
> And different situations affect different people differently.
This also doesnt change the fact that it is objective. Some people are made happy by different things than someone else. It doesnt make the fact that one person is happy and the other isnt somehow a subjective truth.. If person A is made happy by sunsets then it is an objective truth that when person A sees a sunset that they are happy. Therefore it would be unethical to deprive them of sunsets. Similarly a person who is indifferent to sunsets and is therefore not made happy by them is objectively uneffected and therefore if you deprive such a person of a sunset it is, objectively, ethical since no harm has been done.
> We can procure conditions that make room for people to be happy.
If you are doing this than you are satisfying my criteria for ethical behavior as you are maximizing happiness.
@freemo Suffering and happiness are true of course, but not objective quantities. They are qualities that color people's life. They shape people's choices. In different ways. Not all seek to avoid suffering or pursue happiness. So they are not even "objective" as in "goals" for all.
If that is the way you roll, I respect that. If you prize people that do that for themselves and others, I can empathize. I even (internally) judge others' actions through that criteria and use it to choose with who to associate. But using it to justify control over other people's body, even if it is for what I would consider their own good or that of greater society, is a "no" for me.
> Suffering and happiness are true of course, but not objective quantities. They are qualities that color people’s life. They shape people’s choices. In different ways. Not all seek to avoid suffering or pursue happiness. So they are not even “objective” as in “goals” for all.
IF something is a quantity that effects how people behave, and some seek it out while others dont, none of that is an argument that they are any less objective quanities, only that peoples response to it differs, nothing else.
Some people respond to birds by being scared, others dont really care much about birds, while others are very excited to see a bird. The fact that everyone's responds to being around birds differently is not an argument that the number of birds in any one location is somehow subjective.
@freemo @PiedraFiera @icedquinn
There have been volumes written about determining who quaifies as a moral patient and what obligations we have toward them.
If you consistently follow the logic, there can be only one conclusion.
This is why I am a vegan.
Yup IMO morality is logical, objective, and generally not as complicated as people make it.
Most of the complexities arise from people refusing to recognize the morality that conflicts with what they have become socially accustomed to (like eating meat)
@freemo @PiedraFiera @icedquinn
That's exactly it. They always try to work it backward to fit tradition or intuition and end up in twisted contradictions and cognitive dissonance.
@freemo @PiedraFiera @icedquinn
BTW yesterday Thomas was my hero (2A), but today he's a dick.
@freemo There is no universal agreement about what is clearly ethical. There are however, criteria and rules imposed on us with violence.
Changes on these rules and criteria, like this RoeWade, end up with people in jail and countless others harmed. It is a tragedy within a greater tragedy.
The (bad) laws are only part of the problem. The problem of violence being administered systematically by state and non state actors. Many of these actors weave false narratives about how they act in favor of minimizing human suffering that actually advance their control over people.
These types of changes trigger people to remove their (passive or active) consent to being governed. To challenge the narratives. To seek satisfaction elsewhere. Resistance (active and passive) will kick in. There is hope in this tragedy.