• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Roe v Wade

arg-fallbackName="Desertphile"/>
That's not an argument, of any sort, it's not even a natural language argument.

Of course he made un-evidenced assertion: demonstrable reality is against his occult superstitions. Babies are not involved in abortions except in hyper-rare conditions: in these bases, the Bible states to rescue the mother.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
David Gorski said:
Legislative alchemy and abortion: How the fall of Roe v. Wade will degrade science-based medicine

Think about it this way. Ideologues have long pressured legislatures to foist on doctors types of care that are not based in science, to legalize outright quackery, to require insurance companies and government payors to cover quackery, or to outlaw science-based standards of care based on their ideology. More recently, laws have been passed to make it easier for quacks to prescribe ineffective treatments for COVID-19 like ivermectin and to ban public health interventions against the disease. Abortion bans as draconian as the ones spreading throughout the country as a result of the fall of Roe v. Wade are no different in terms of ideology trumping science and evidence. As I contemplated what to write (or even whether to write) about the fall of Roe v. Wade and what it means for SBM, I came to the conclusion that it is useful to look at this decision and the laws that will flow from it through the lens of ideologues and believers overruling SBM based on their beliefs.
 
arg-fallbackName="creativesoul"/>
The recent ruling used reasoning that amounted to rejecting the original argument given in Roe. It goes like this...

There are no rights to abortion afforded to women clearly spelled out in the constitution, therefore a woman does not have a constitutional right to abortion care.

That is true, if we are to hold that the only constitutional rights that anyone ever has are those clearly spelled out in the constitution.

That reasoning cannot be left to stand.
 
arg-fallbackName="creativesoul"/>
The exact same reasoning could be invoked as warrant(precedent) for the removal of each and every right that is not clearly spelled out in the constitution.
 
arg-fallbackName="creativesoul"/>
Put it to the people. Make it count. Note the overlap between those who want to force women to have unwanted pregnancies and those who are complicit in stopping the government from enacting laws that are in the best interest of everyone(the public infrastructure parts of BBB). Note the overlap between the defunding of social services, and other public benefits such as public schools and those who fight hard to make sure that the wealthiest Americans do not have to pay their fair share. Note the overlap between those who want to force women to have unwanted pregnancies and those who refuse to raise the minimum wage, or provide adequate public housing, schools, good paying jobs, etc. Note the overlap between those who force their religious moral beliefs onto others, and those who support a former president that has been found guilty of a coordinated attack(seditious conspiracy) against The United States of America. Note the overlap between current elected officials who support Trump while simultaneously rejecting legislation that would benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans).

Note the overlap.

If the DNC cannot make a case in the next two years of exactly who must be removed from office in order to successfully implement legislation that's in the overwhelming majority's best interest, then the best thing to do would be to perform a dnc on them....
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
If the DNC cannot make a case in the next two years of exactly who must be removed from office in order to successfully implement legislation that's in the overwhelming majority's best interest, then the best thing to do would be to perform a dnc on them....

I hate to say it, but the only thing the Democrats are good at is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

it is unfortunate that the Democrats did not choose an electable candidate in 2016.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Steven Novella said:
When Is A Fetus A Person?

Generally in the US we tend to default to individual liberty, and the state has to demonstrate their compelling interest to interfere with that liberty. That would mean we default to a woman’s right to determine what happens with her own body. Further, we have to distinguish between personal moral choices (which may be informed by culture, religion, and personal attributes) vs objective ethical and legal philosophy, which is valid to impose on a society as a matter of law. We can agree as a society that stealing is unethical, make it illegal, and impose penalties for doing so. But we should be very cautious before making a moral decision, like marital infidelity, a criminal offense. That falls more in the realm of a personal moral choice, not something that should be policed by society.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Who is Steven Novella to tell us what we should do? Hardly anything he says here makes any sense. He says we can all agree that stealing is wrong so its ok to make it illegal. Does that mean marital infidelity should also be illegal? Surly we can all agree that cheating is wrong. Why is cheating a "personal moral choice" but stealing is not? He doesnt explain. Just a bunch of meaningless word salad.
 
arg-fallbackName="ldmitruk"/>
Who is Steven Novella to tell us what we should do? Hardly anything he says here makes any sense. He says we can all agree that stealing is wrong so its ok to make it illegal. Does that mean marital infidelity should also be illegal? Surly we can all agree that cheating is wrong. Why is cheating a "personal moral choice" but stealing is not? He doesnt explain. Just a bunch of meaningless word salad.
Pot, meet kettle.
 
arg-fallbackName="ldmitruk"/>
How many women have died so far?
We don't know as of yet, but women will end up resorting to illegal or quack methods and they will die, it's only a matter of time. Banning abortions doesn't stop abortions from happening, it drives the procedure underground where it's not regulated. So banning abortions is denying women health care.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
We don't know as of yet, but women will end up resorting to illegal or quack methods and they will die, it's only a matter of time. Banning abortions doesn't stop abortions from happening, it drives the procedure underground where it's not regulated. So banning abortions is denying women health care.

I see.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Barbara Alvarez said:
We must dismantle abortion disinformation

Christian nationalists thrive on disinformation when pushing their anti-abortion agenda. When they’re not touting biblical scripture as justifications for being anti-abortion, they desperately cling to disinformation to convince the masses that abortion is something worthy of condemnation. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute has reported that doctors in 27 states require people to provide medically inaccurate information about the supposed risks of abortion. This includes false information about medication abortion, false claims about a link between abortion and breast cancer, and incorrectly telling patients that abortions can lead to fertility issues and psychological distress. None of this is true. Rather, studies have shown that denying someone an abortion can lead to mental, physical, emotional and financial stress.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Best thing would be to just not kill unborn.
While in the most ideal world that would be great it‘s not possible. Did you hear about the 10 year old that got rapped and is pregnant she cant get an abortion because of the law.

in your world this child needs to go through rape and on top of that pregnancy for 9 months then give birth wile being not prepared mentally or physically.
 
arg-fallbackName="ldmitruk"/>
While in the most ideal world that would be great it‘s not possible. Did you hear about the 10 year old that got rapped and is pregnant she cant get an abortion because of the law.

in your world this child needs to go through rape and on top of that pregnancy for 9 months then give birth wile being not prepared mentally or physically.
This shows just how uncaring pro-lifers actually are. They're all for protecting the unborn but they don't give a shit what happens after the child is born, whether the mother is 10 or any age.
 
Back
Top