Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Roe v. Wade is history

Page 42 of 60 [ 956 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 60  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

06 Jul 2022, 8:28 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Elselijn Klingma
- The Parthood View: "The fetus does not sit inside its mother like a yoghurt in a fridge (known as The Containment View). Instead, the foetus is part of the pregnant organism like a tail on a cat."
and
Fiona Woollard
- The Conclusive Body-Ownership Thesis: "Each person owns her own body. Her title to her body defeats all other types of title to that body, except (possibly) titles based on legitimate, autonomous transfer on the part of the person whose body it is. It follows that owning one’s own body is a key aspect of moral standing for embodied persons ...

If I do not own all persistent parts of my body, my body ownership is weaker than the body ownership of most persons. This threatens my moral standing. So, the combination of The Parthood View and the view that the pregnant person does not own their foetus, implies that the pregnant person, and indeed all those who may become pregnant, do not have the same full moral standing as others." (Woollard, "Yes Sir, That's My Baby", 2019)


I studied bioethics in my undergrad back in the 1980s so am not familiar with recent philosophical debates. I do remember there was a principle of moral relativity which posits that ,morality is a cultural construct and that depending on what lens you view the morality of owning your own body is dependent on the culture you live. it goes without saying that a woman living in virtually half of the world is the property of her husband or family and by default so is her body.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,433
Location: Chez Quis

06 Jul 2022, 8:40 pm

Um, perhaps in a legal sense in some places, but not in a moral and metaphysical sense.

By this logic:

Men own their bodies, but not some women in some parts of the world?

Who owns your body, if not you?

Do governments own their citizens?

Who owns your mind and its works, since it's part of your body?

Who owns your possessions, if you don't even own yourself?

If we don't own our bodies how do you prohibit slavery, homicide, kidnap, torture, or rape?

Why do you have to consent to organ donation even when you're dead?

Do you (cyberdad) own your whole body or just parts of it, conditionally or temporarily?

When did you last surrender ownership of your reproductive organs?

Was this decided for you at birth, whether you had children or not?


_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

06 Jul 2022, 10:56 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Um, perhaps in a legal sense in some places, but not in a moral and metaphysical sense.

By this logic:

Men own their bodies, but not some women in some parts of the world?

Who owns your body, if not you?

Do governments own their citizens?

Who owns your mind and its works, since it's part of your body?

Who owns your possessions, if you don't even own yourself?

If we don't own our bodies how do you prohibit slavery, homicide, kidnap, torture, or rape?

Why do you have to consent to organ donation even when you're dead?

Do you (cyberdad) own your whole body or just parts of it, conditionally or temporarily?

When did you last surrender ownership of your reproductive organs?

Was this decided for you at birth, whether you had children or not?


All of these are valid questions but we live in a world where 6 those arbitrating the law in their capacity as supreme court judges are not swayed by logic, science, freedom or morality but apparently governed by biblical edicts



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

06 Jul 2022, 11:06 pm

Well this is my perception of it, but I think the supreme courts job is to make laws based on what the constitution says,b based on how they interpret it. They interpreted that abortion is not covered under the 14th amendment based on what the amendment says.

But I think for people to blame the supreme court on this might be a case of "blaming the messenger" in a sense, because they didn't make the law, they just interpreting and upholding it? And judges still have to make rulings based on the law, no matter on their personal feelings towards it?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,155
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jul 2022, 11:32 pm

ironpony wrote:
Well this is my perception of it, but I think the supreme courts job is to make laws based on what the constitution says,b based on how they interpret it. They interpreted that abortion is not covered under the 14th amendment based on what the amendment says.

But I think for people to blame the supreme court on this might be a case of "blaming the messenger" in a sense, because they didn't make the law, they just interpreting and upholding it? And judges still have to make rulings based on the law, no matter on their personal feelings towards it?


The supreme court did not have to overturn that, they were not obligated to in any sense like that, so yeah they basically did make the law that it is not federarally supported so states can do what they want. It means a lot of women will die unessisary deaths, even in states that say if the life of the mother is in danger it could be approved, means realistically an abortion cannot be performed basically till she is dying even if the doctor can see her life is at risk if she carries the pregnancy further they may have to wait till she is literally dying of complications they knew would happen to legally be able to perform it. In many cases that will be too late.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

06 Jul 2022, 11:35 pm

I see what you mean. And those are totally fair points, and maybe the supreme court had too much faith in the states to be left up to them.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,155
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

07 Jul 2022, 12:08 am

ironpony wrote:
I see what you mean. And those are totally fair points, and maybe the supreme court had too much faith in the states to be left up to them.


I don't think they were so clueless about what they are doing, I think it is certainly fair for people to direct anger at the supreme court.


_________________
Metal never dies. \m/


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

07 Jul 2022, 12:25 am

And that's fair, maybe my perception of the supreme court being 'messengers' of the law, is incorrect. This could have totally been a political move because of the new election as well.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,433
Location: Chez Quis

07 Jul 2022, 1:55 am

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and Americans' constitutional rights in modern times.

They don't rewrite the Constitution except in rare cases of determining amendments.

Their decisions become legal precedents.

Those precedents are like "messengers of the law".

Their role is the same as The Supreme Court of Canada when they interpret The Constitution Act and The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspx

I don't want to change the topic, but since you live in BC here's an interesting brief of an SCC decision pertaining to disability rights.

https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/ ... 0-eng.aspx


_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Jul 2022, 4:50 am

The Supreme Court doesn’t “make” laws. Congress does, and the President signs bills into law.

The Supreme Court does interpret existing law, though, based upon suits bought which might affect existing law. These interpretations might change, or amend existing law to the point where an existing law might seem like a new law.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

07 Jul 2022, 6:07 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
The Supreme Court doesn’t “make” laws. Congress does, and the President signs bills into law.

The Supreme Court does interpret existing law, though, based upon suits bought which might affect existing law. These interpretations might change, or amend existing law to the point where an existing law might seem like a new law.


Doesn't that mean Biden can screw this bill peice of paper up and throw this in the bin



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,696
Location: Over there

07 Jul 2022, 6:52 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Maybe in 1000 years we can implant a whole society of frozen embryos.
8O cf. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley.

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't.
— William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I, ll


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Jul 2022, 7:58 am

Nope. Biden can't do anything. He can't "junk" the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court overturned a previous Supreme Court decision. Both the overturned case and the case that overturned the overturned case were based upon a state law.

It's possible that Biden could issue an "executive order" which might supersede state-passed abortion laws.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,433
Location: Chez Quis

09 Jul 2022, 5:26 pm

Image


_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

09 Jul 2022, 8:22 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Nope. Biden can't do anything. He can't "junk" the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court overturned a previous Supreme Court decision. Both the overturned case and the case that overturned the overturned case were based upon a state law.

It's possible that Biden could issue an "executive order" which might supersede state-passed abortion laws.


Well let's see how he responds.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

10 Jul 2022, 4:10 pm

So far Biden's staff have told people to protest it.