Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 11:29 AM
31 online now:
dwise1, GDR, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Sarah Bellum, Taq (8 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,707 Year: 9,743/19,786 Month: 2,165/2,119 Week: 201/724 Day: 40/93 Hour: 5/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Some states protect women's rights
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 121 of 201 (853895)
06-02-2019 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by AZPaul3
05-28-2019 11:15 PM


Re: Is the fetus a human being? Is it a living creature that we allow you to kill?
But when you say "That is at the extreme of the discussion" you are saying that it is NOT entirely a body integrity issue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by AZPaul3, posted 05-28-2019 11:15 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by AZPaul3, posted 06-02-2019 1:05 PM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 122 of 201 (853896)
06-02-2019 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Chiroptera
05-29-2019 9:38 AM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Chiroptera, posted 05-29-2019 9:38 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 06-02-2019 10:16 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 201 (853897)
06-02-2019 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ProtoTypical
05-29-2019 1:12 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
I quite agree that the legal question is a different question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-29-2019 1:12 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6641
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 124 of 201 (853902)
06-02-2019 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Sarah Bellum
06-02-2019 8:20 AM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-02-2019 8:20 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-04-2019 3:20 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4136
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 125 of 201 (853907)
06-02-2019 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Sarah Bellum
06-02-2019 8:10 AM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-02-2019 8:10 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Theodoric, posted 06-03-2019 9:22 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 150 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-04-2019 3:22 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4136
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 126 of 201 (853909)
06-02-2019 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Sarah Bellum
06-02-2019 8:13 AM


Re: Is the fetus a human being? Is it a living creature that we allow you to kill?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-02-2019 8:13 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Theodoric, posted 06-03-2019 9:24 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16673
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 127 of 201 (853916)
06-02-2019 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
06-01-2019 3:34 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
Faith writes:

They provided means for changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times you know...


Yes, they recognized that so why don't you?

Faith writes:

... their insights were timeless, built on centuries of trial and error.


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.

Faith writes:

Despite pretenses to great changes, there really is "nothing new under the sun" and we need to recognize that.


You contradict yourself. Remember when you said, "They provided means for changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times"?

Faith writes:

You and the other "progressives" here are courting anarchy and chaos and the complete breakdown of society.


No, we're advocating "changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times."

Izquierdo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 06-01-2019 3:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-02-2019 2:40 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31804
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 128 of 201 (853920)
06-02-2019 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ringo
06-02-2019 2:25 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 06-02-2019 2:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 06-02-2019 2:47 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16673
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 129 of 201 (853921)
06-02-2019 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
06-02-2019 2:40 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
Faith writes:

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 that is what is happening. Why are you complaining about it?

Faith writes:

And no, they did NOT make it from scratch, it was the product of centuries of political experience in Europe.


The only democracy they had as a model was the one they broke away from.

Izquierdo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-02-2019 2:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 06-02-2019 2:53 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31804
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 130 of 201 (853923)
06-02-2019 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
06-02-2019 2:47 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 06-02-2019 2:47 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 06-02-2019 3:01 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16673
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 131 of 201 (853926)
06-02-2019 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
06-02-2019 2:53 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
Faith writes:

There is no process underway for amending the Constitution.


Of course there is. Stop saying dumb things. The process is there even of nobody is voting on an amendment at this very moment.

Faith writes:

Democracy is NOT what the Founders established, but a Republic...


A democratic republic.

Izquierdo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 06-02-2019 2:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 06-02-2019 3:18 PM ringo has responded
 Message 134 by xongsmith, posted 06-02-2019 5:19 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31804
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 132 of 201 (853928)
06-02-2019 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
06-02-2019 3:01 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
Stop saying dumb things.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 06-02-2019 3:01 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 06-02-2019 3:22 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Theodoric, posted 06-03-2019 9:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16673
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 133 of 201 (853929)
06-02-2019 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
06-02-2019 3:18 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
Faith writes:

Stop saying dumb things.


If you could point out how something was dumb, you wouldn't look so dumb.

Izquierdo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 06-02-2019 3:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1884
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 134 of 201 (853933)
06-02-2019 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
06-02-2019 3:01 PM


Re: Amending the Constitution
Ringo writes:

Faith writes:

There is no process underway for amending the Constitution.


Of course there is. Stop saying dumb things. The process is there even of nobody is voting on an amendment at this very moment.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 06-02-2019 3:01 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by AZPaul3, posted 06-02-2019 7:02 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4136
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 135 of 201 (853938)
06-02-2019 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by xongsmith
06-02-2019 5:19 PM


Re: Amending the Constitution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by xongsmith, posted 06-02-2019 5:19 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019