Roe v. Wade

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. The woman owns whatever is in her body. End of story. The only restriction on disposal of the contents of her body is the prevailing public health laws.

That is why we don't void our bowels or bladder in the middle of the street.

ruveyn

The law would differ with you here. Consider the difference between first degree murder, (premeditated), and manslaughter, (accidental). The difference is in motive.

Yes. The woman owns whatever is in her body. End of story. The only restriction on disposal of the contents of her body is the prevailing public health laws.

That is why we don't void our bowels or bladder in the middle of the street.

ruveyn

Truely sick example. A woman whom for whatever reason, takes joy in the act of repeated abortions. The motivation is the percieved thrill of it. Should this sort of act be legal?

If the woman can get a doctor to do it and she can pay for it, why not?

ruveyn

zer0netgain, you take childbearing, labor, and parenting way too lightly. The first two responsiblities are always on the mother, so why sould it not be her choice alone to make.

If yall want my personal honest opinion on the matter, it is slightly off topic, but related. And unfortunately has eugenic risk factors. But, regardless of the potential hazards and difficulties, my view is that all people should be sterilized temporarily, and have to earn the right to procreate. If that were the case, you would find the whole issue of abortion become rather trivial.

Our species is arguably overpopulated, and continues to grow. Some form of widespread action should be taken, sooner, rather than later, to counter this trend. Again, that's all just opinion. Nor is it entirely practical.



But I honestly think that some of the following should apply:
Abortion legal if, both parents agree to it, and fetus is still not viable.
or
Abortion legal if, mother's life is classified as at risk.(Something is wrong with the pregnancy that provides a high risk of complications) And she wishes it, regardless of father's opinion.
or
Abortion legal if, mother desires it, and pregnancy caused outside of her realm of control, ie rape.

However, other stipulations should apply:
If abortion is desired by father, but not mother, and pregnancy caried to term, father is relieved of all parental responsibilities.

If abortion is desired by the mother, and not the father, this is where the greatest inner debate, imo, arrises. I'm of the opinion that the mother may waive her parental responsibilities and custody assumed by father. But pregnancy should be carried to term. Provided her life is never classified as at risk.

Those are my official opinions, right or wrong.

~NS

Let us say that you attach a chain to me (with my permission), and padlock it on. Let us say you own these items. Then I wish to remove them. It turns out I cannot do so without ruining your property. It’s quite lawful for me to remove these items. It’s my body and my rights to my person outweigh your rights to mere property.

Let us say that you arrange to implant some item of property inside me. You want it back (for whatever reason), but the only way to remove it requires I undergo a medical procedure. I am not legally obliged to go through with such a medical procedure. The right to my person (in the form of the right to reject medical interventions) outweighs your rights to mere property.

It is rare outside a debate that only concerns the bodies of females, to encounter arguments that implicitly imply someone’s properties rights ought to require people to not remove things from their bodies, or to undergo unwanted medical procedures, yet your suggestions that property rights should prevent or require the removal of something from a woman’s body to convenience alleged property rights of males does exactly that.


Pregnancy and childbirth is inherently dangerous. Risks to the health and life of the mother are real and present. Pregnancy itself constitutes a risk to health and potentially fatal complications are not uncommon.


No, he does not. He has the right to take steps that would avoid the situation entirely.

He has no right to force anyone to undergo a medical procedure, and he has no right to skip out on his obligations to his offspring. That a women does not choose to undergo a medical procedure does not negate any obligation a person has to their offspring. Your suggestion would either require that some people have a legal right to force others to undergo unwanted (and risky) medical procedures, or that children, through no fault of their own, be alienated from their rights.

You might think it is the job of the law to make sure if people get themselves into an unfortunate or undesirable circumstance, that males are never left worse off than women and children, but that is not the purpose of the law at all. It is not the job of the law to ensure anyone involved in undesirable circumstances is equally inconvenienced either.

The law’s task is to uphold society’s wider values, avoiding the impartiality that arises in detail consideration. No one else has any general rights in other circumstances to require people to undergo medical procedures or not undergo medical procedures for the sake of an alleged property right, because it’s not consistent with society’s wider values. The law’s task is to uphold those wider values without being partial because some people perceive that as a result of biological facts beyond the influence of the law, impartially upholding society’s wider values in these specific circumstances, risks men involved in such circumstances being worse off than women and children involved in the same.

The law cannot change biological facts. It’s task is not to ensure that biological facts are responded to so that if between women, men and children, someone is going to be more inconvenienced, that it not be men. It’s task is to apply society’s wider values, and society’s wider values are that the right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over property rights, and the rights of children to be supported by their parents takes precedence over squabbles or disagreements between the same.

Any man can avoid any inconvenience the combined effects of biological facts and society’s wider values might cause in such circumstances, by keeping it in his pants.


It is not a right of women to have their children supported. It is a right of children to be supported.

You are suggesting that people loose very basic rights because of the conduct of some third party. Children are not property or an extension of either of their parents. Once born, a human child is a legal, rights bearing person, and there is no legal logic in depriving them of important rights because of acts or omissions of some third party, occurring before the child was even born.

It is very rare for men to have no choice about whether or not to risk fathering a child. Drunks cannot be sure they will crash a car if they drive, but this does not suggest they have no control over whether they cause a car crash by driving while drunk. Men might not control whether or not a woman conceives when they have sex with her, but that is not the same as suggesting they have no choice in the matter at all. Just like women, they legally have a choice over what they do with their bodies.

No actual rights of men are violated in this issue, but all the suggestions you have come up with to protect men from the consequences of their actions, requires that someone else’s rights be violated. The logic seems to be that if someone is going to be left worse off, it’s unacceptable for this to be men, such that it is better to strip either women or children of their rights, than allow any circumstance to result in men being the least advantaged or most disadvantaged party in respect of women and children, if it is quite impossible for the law to ensure equality of outcome for all parties.

If yall want my personal honest opinion on the matter, it is slightly off topic, but related. And unfortunately has eugenic risk factors. But, regardless of the potential hazards and difficulties, my view is that all people should be sterilized temporarily, and have to earn the right to procreate. If that were the case, you would find the whole issue of abortion become rather trivial.

Our species is arguably overpopulated, and continues to grow. Some form of widespread action should be taken, sooner, rather than later, to counter this trend. Again, that's all just opinion. Nor is it entirely practical.



But I honestly think that some of the following should apply:
Abortion legal if, both parents agree to it, and fetus is still not viable.
or
Abortion legal if, mother's life is classified as at risk.(Something is wrong with the pregnancy that provides a high risk of complications) And she wishes it, regardless of father's opinion.
or
Abortion legal if, mother desires it, and pregnancy caused outside of her realm of control, ie rape.

However, other stipulations should apply:
If abortion is desired by father, but not mother, and pregnancy caried to term, father is relieved of all parental responsibilities.

If abortion is desired by the mother, and not the father, this is where the greatest inner debate, imo, arrises. I'm of the opinion that the mother may waive her parental responsibilities and custody assumed by father. But pregnancy should be carried to term. Provided her life is never classified as at risk.

Those are my official opinions, right or wrong.

~NS

one could remember or take information from those who witnessed the absolutely savage behavior of culture in the States at that time to the 'unwed' mother and by extension, to her child during the era proceeding Roe v Wade. There is a reason that the term 'bastard' was so derogatory, there is a reason "The Scarlet Letter" was so scandalous. Culturally it was ruin and degradation for the girl or woman. Abortion - because this was before the birth control pill became available globally- were wretched back alley affairs and the proverbial coat hanger was not a myth, something to which I can personally attest, (but did not happen to me, personally.) because competent medical providers were forbidden on pain of losing their licence and worse. The fact that it was a public health issue needs to be put in context of Roe v. Wade.

Women and girls were hounded and driven away from their forever stigmatized families, the children were lost to adoption or orphanages, women and girls died in agony from the problematic procedures. Organized ( and not so organized) crime made money and was protected by those they extorted and maimed or died because of the cultural stigma. Please remember that 'shotgun weddings' were actual tragic occurrences, not just punchlines for crude jokes.

So I can see Roe v Wade in the context of Brown v Topeka Board of Edu. We so often take laws out of the context of the times in which they were written, when often it is the very foundation of the reason the law was written.

You can't blur it like that, though. It has to be all out legal or made flatly illegal. An illegal status would bring about plenty of social problems that keeping it legal wouldn't.

Why can you not blur it like that? Not everything has to be simply legal/not legal in every circumstance.

If you shoot someone you have committed murder....unless it is was a result of negligence and was accidental, which carries a lighter sentece and different classification. Or even if it was in self defence, in which case it isn't illegal at all. Or if you where ordered to while in the military in which case it is serving your country and everyone gets to be proud of you....the list of circumstances goes on, as does the classification of the "crime" if it is even determined to be one.

Motive is important. Circumstance is important. It isn't a simple yes/no answer.

Again: abortion isn't a crime and it's not murder.