|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some states protect women's rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 625 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
But when you say "That is at the extreme of the discussion" you are saying that it is NOT entirely a body integrity issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 625 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Your "last paragraph" is
"There is an issue that a parent cannot harm their child through neglect, but whatever the issue involved in obligating parental care it doesn't involve bodily autonomy so isn't quite the issue here." But isn't this rather a matter of degree than of kind? That's why I don't think of "bodily autonomy" in this case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 625 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
I quite agree that the legal question is a different question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
In one case, the fetus is still connected to the mother, drawing nourishment from her body, disposing of its waste through her body, at this point adding several pounds of weight to her body, and so forth.
In the other case, the infant is a free living individual who in no way is parasiticing anyone else's body. Requiring the mother to occasionally pick it up and stick a bottle in its mouth in no way compares to "hooking the kid up" physically to anyone's body, and it's even possible to find someone else to take over these duties. Perhaps you don't see an essential difference here, but I don't think I can help you here. All I can point out is that to me, this is the essential difference. - I should also point out that, leaving aside these abstract arguments, in real life if a pregnancy gets to the ninth month and then a termination is being considered, it's because some very serious complications have come up that threaten the health or life of mother or child.If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
For specific circumstances, just think of partial-birth abortion. No, Sarah. Not good enough. 39-week is a hell of a difference from 15-25 week partial-birth IDX. Remember, at 39 weeks the kid is already demanding a cell phone and the car keys. I can imagine a 39-week abortion but only under the most extreme circumstances like an accident that leaves the kid stillborn. Eminently justifiable for removal. With that in mind...
Sarah writes: But what is the difference between allowing a one week old post-fetus to starve and aborting a 39-week gestation pre-child? The one is crying and pooping her pants, the other is already dead. Unless you can come up with a reasonable scenario I don't think a 39-week abortion is a reality.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
But when you say "That is at the extreme of the discussion" you are saying that it is NOT entirely a body integrity issue. That is why I cited Roe-v-Wade. SCOTUS has ruled the state has an interest to limiting abortion in the third trimester except in cases of the mother's health. They split the political hair. Regardless. Late term abortions are rare ( <1% at 24+ weeks ) and, I can imagine, are contemplated for justifiable health reasons. I consider those bodily integrity decisions as well. Unless you have some other data. So, yes, the bodily integrity issue is still paramount even in late term situations. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Yes, they recognized that so why don't you?
They provided means for changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times you know... Faith writes:
Well, no. They built their democracy more or less from scratch. They could see what didn't work when despots did it but they were less certain about what would work. Hence, the possibility of, and need for, change.
... their insights were timeless, built on centuries of trial and error. Faith writes:
You contradict yourself. Remember when you said, "They provided means for changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times"?
Despite pretenses to great changes, there really is "nothing new under the sun" and we need to recognize that. Faith writes:
No, we're advocating "changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times." You and the other "progressives" here are courting anarchy and chaos and the complete breakdown of society.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I said, they provided MEANS for changing the Constitution, llberals don't just get to change it as they please, we all get a say in it.
And no, they did NOT make it from scratch, it was the product of centuries of political experience in Europe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
And that is what is happening. Why are you complaining about it?
As I said, they provided MEANS for changing the Constitution, llberals don't just get to change it as they please, we all get a say in it. Faith writes:
The only democracy they had as a model was the one they broke away from. And no, they did NOT make it from scratch, it was the product of centuries of political experience in Europe.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no process underway for amending the Constitution. Stop saying dumb things.
Democracy is NOT what the Founders established, but a Republic, and breaking away from England didn't stop them from incorporating the best of English institutions. Again, stop saying dumb things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Of course there is. Stop saying dumb things. The process is there even of nobody is voting on an amendment at this very moment.
There is no process underway for amending the Constitution. Faith writes:
A democratic republic. Democracy is NOT what the Founders established, but a Republic...Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Stop saying dumb things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
If you could point out how something was dumb, you wouldn't look so dumb. Stop saying dumb things.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Ringo writes:
Faith writes:
Of course there is. Stop saying dumb things. The process is there even of nobody is voting on an amendment at this very moment.
There is no process underway for amending the Constitution. If I'm not too far off, I think we only need 1 more state to ratify the ongoing process for the ERA Amendment and then it will become part of the living Constitution.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
That may be debatable. Depends on whether Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota, who originally voted to ratify, actually rescinded their ratifications.
We may still be 6 states short. The constitutional issue is whether a state can actually do that. Is the first “Yes” final? Is a state allowed to change its mind prior to full ratification? Since this is the ERA, whose main constituency is the female half of our population, I have a suspicion that the phrase “the right to change your mind” just took on a new dimension. I did not just say that. Then, there is the problem of the original ratification process and Congress' reluctance to extend it yet again. Republicans. That timetable has already expired. But we're still trying so your point is taken. There are indeed ongoing efforts to change the Constitution. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024