Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

[Diogenes]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned today.
This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court. My guess is, it will do both and will lead to women traveling from their homes in the South and much of the heartland of the United States to States that protect the 'right' for 50 years.

The 'abortion pill' will be banned in many States and the 'pro-choice' advocates will try to get the pill into those States where it will be a felony to possess it. I can envision armed militias at borders and around airports.
When the 18th Amendment prohibited Alcohol in 1919 it produced a new, illegal industry and related violence that lead to the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, repealing that Amendment.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit for speling

...
The value/worth/right to life of a human does not come down to the opinion of another.

Things such as "value", "worth" and "rights" are exactly down to opinion, and not all opinions agree on which bunch of us're worthy of us an equal amount of any of em.

When we restrict a woman's right to control what happens with her body, we're placing a greater value on the fetus insider her, than on the woman wrapped around that fetus. Ya know, the woman who risks her very life for that fetus to have it one.

Consider the Christian, right and good, who promotes the virtues of a book that implies or declares that nonbelievers're "fools" who can "do no good". That right there's in their sacred text, regardless of how they perceive it.

Consider the Christian, right and good, who promotes the virtues, the value of a book declaring homosexuals need them a stoning.

The Christian has no moral authority to tell others about things such as "value", and "worth", and "rights", when history is packed full of em using their "rights" to deny others their bit of any one or all the above.

...
We have already acknowledged all human life has equal worth/value/right to life,...

I hold no value in another's life, that'd threaten the lives of those I love.

I have me no problem with murder, if it means one of mine is kept safe.

Don't allow yourself the pride to speak for me on this issue. (generic yourself)

Just because some people come along and attempt to deny/ignore/or worse attack this inherent value/worth/right to life does not mean well then those being attacked are actually worth less and have no rights. How absurd! It’s like saying, “Look, the bullies just beat up that kid -- must mean he’s a loser.” Such an unacceptable line of reasoning.

Included cause I wanna represent your position fairly through my snippings.

I agree with what I think you're getting at.

...
Not even a little. Hitler did not recognize the intrinsic value of human life. It was his opinion some humans were worth less and that all did not have intrinsic value.

This gets us to whether it woulda been better if his momma had access to safe abortion services. And used em.

There are not many standards when we are talking about moral truth. Moral truth is derived from one ultimate, external standard that we all point to.

Morality's just opinion, and not all opinions agree.

There's no inherent "truth" in opinion, and that's why it's called "opinion".

Why should the woman have the final say?

I ask myself, "Why should I?"

...
We are talking about a separate unique human life.

Are we talking about the separate unique human life that's the woman, or the separate unique human life that's the fetus?

And if both of em have equal value, worth and rights, how come she has to give up some of hers so that fetus can have all of its?

...
No one can force her to be a parent.

But we can force her to do what we tell her regarding her own body?

Also, that life has a father as well. What about his say?

We get to not hafta be girls. Fair's fair.

Sorry ladies, I love y'all and all, and I'm proud to've known a good bunch of ya biblically, but I just ain't got me the mental fortitude to endure what y'all do for just being girls. Sometimes though, I've wondered if having my own boobies to smoosh on might be worth it. Then I think, naw, the rest of it's just too much. But I mean it, if y'all ever conquer the fear of critter fetching out the house, us men're doomed to second class status.

Please watch this. It does a great job of pointing out the illogic of the pro choice position and their cries of, “No forced birth!” as a false opposition to eliminating abortion.

https://edify.us/video/how-to-change-minds-on-abortion/

While I preciate the link, I don't have time to wade through outside material searching for the particulars of what you might find pertinent.

How about we try to support women so they can keep their children like the social research shows they want to? How about that?

We weren't doing that when abortion was legal, cause "costy too muchy", I can't imagine getting it done when birthrates're now set to rise.

...
Huh? How is accessing thru technology what is going on in a woman’s uterus emotional? It’s literally showing what we are literally dealing with. It is providing her with information. It is revealing, not hiding or keeping anything from her in order for her to make an informed decision. Who in the world would oppose access to information?

Othern maybe a niche section of pornhub, I see no reason to require we look inside a woman's body.

Or that we require she looks inside her own body.

Or that she be required to have described to her what's inside of it.

...
I find the pro choice position anti science and anti reason.

Well there's your problem right there.

You'd restrict a woman's rights because of some science, or reason.

Have you ever even tried to reason with a woman? Sorry ladies, I was just poking fun, I really do love y'all.

What I'm getting at here is that a woman's decision should be hers alone, science and reason be danged.

...
Abortion is not pro women.

I'm just not hearing about men not being allowed to have em an abortion.

...
A country that permits mothers to kill their own children is a country that devalues life.

And a country that makes a woman's medical decisions for her doesn't value its wimmins.

...
Part of what it means to be a human is protecting and respecting each other from womb to tomb.

What about respecting folks with a womb?

That is beautiful and the only thing that makes sense, less we are all reduced to our productivity/usefulness.

Sounds to me like you're fretting more on a woman's "productivity" as it relates to her "usefulness".

Why, do you know women can be more useful'n just being baby ovens?

I swear to God!

They can cook and clean, and sew holes in socks, and they do it without ya even gotta tell em. Ya can put em in a pretty dress on Sunday, and parade em up and down Main Street, a-hollering out, "Look at this pretty thing here I got".

They can get ya bonded out of jail, even if it is, they was the one that had to put you in it. They can plow a field, and slop the hogs, and still be just as pretty or more of it than when they started.

They can do that fancy science and reason you was so proud about up above. They can lead classrooms and corporations. They can design complex machines, and the code that runs em. Surgery, policing, truck driving, governing, all such as that. And now, with the ability of recent technology, they can even pee standing up.


But what you're saying here, is they just can't control what happens to their own bodies.

How bout that ladies? Not including tooth count, I'm looking me the better option, ain't I?

[Bust Nak]

It should be accepted because the science supports it. And as each of us has already admitted, regarding the intrinsic value/worth of human life, “we hold these truths to be self-evident.”

Each of you has admitted... That's would only convince those who has admitted the existence of equal, intrinsic value of human life, and they don't need convincing. It's self-evidently true to me that value of a human life is determined by one's opinion, why should anyone who isn't already in your choir accept intrinsic value?

No. What makes it a problem is it permits the Hitlers and bigots to have power.

That just flies in the face of history, the popularity of moral relativism/subjectivism is a fairly recent phenomenon. Even at the height of its popularity, we are still a minority. There is zero doubt that those who are responsible for the likes of Hitler coming to power are not the ones who believed a person's opinion determines value; it was those who believed that the value of a human does not come down to opinion.

The value/worth/right to life of a human does not come down to the opinion of another. I’m not sure what you don’t get about that.

It's very easy to get, there is nothing complicated with intrinsic value, it's just appears to be both incorrect and problematic historically.

We have already acknowledged all human life has equal worth/value/right to life...

And there are people as confident as you are about the Earth being flat. That it feels true to you means nothing to those who don't already share your stance. Being so sure of of inherent value doesn't mean people have inherent value.

Not even a little. Hitler did not recognize the intrinsic value of human life.

But he did recognize the intrinsic value of Aryan life, he also recognized that his opinion did not determined what value humans have, he shares the same stance as you re: the existence of intrinsic values, just disagree on the specific details of what those values are.

But according to your and clownboat’s understanding, if Hitler thought less of Jewish people, then Jewish people must have less value. Your position is one person’s behavior/action/attitude determines the value of another. THAT is false and unacceptable.

According to our understanding, Jewish people does have less value, to Hitler. It's an accurate, verifiably true statement, all the more reason to accept our thesis.

There are not many standards when we are talking about moral truth. Moral truth is derived from one ultimate, external standard that we all point to. The fact that a psychopath is oblivious to THE standard does not then mean there isn’t one standard. It merely means his conscience is messed up, which is something we can all agree upon regarding a psychopath.

So you keep insisting, even in the face of people telling you no, we don't all agree on that. Given the demographic of this forum, chances are, locally, there are more here that disagree then agree with you on the existence of intrinsic values.

Truth is something all men can know via observation of this world we live, acknowledgment of science and the way things work, and by using reason and logic. And all men are subject to this Truth and it is actually how we all live on a daily basis and why we even appeal to doing what is right and good. If we didn’t all realize that right and wrong exists, we wouldn’t demand it. We wouldn’t insist upon it. We wouldn’t get so outraged. But we do. And rightly so.

Sure, that much we do. But we do not agree on the nature of that truth, nor agree on what exactly is that truth.

You seem oblivious to the irony in your response. You appeal to us having to determine the relevance of a standard. LOL! We would have to appeal to an ultimate, external standard, to be able to appeal to the relevance of a standard. And your very own line, “I don’t think it’s those of the psychotic, do you?” shows you recognize there is an ultimate standard for right/wrong to which we can judge the psychotic’s action/behavior.

It's not the gotcha that you seemed to think it is. Yeah, there is an ultimate standard for right/wrong - it's mine, with me being the subject in question. That you think there is irony in my response indicates a lack of understanding in the position you are critiquing, you did not seemed to realise there is an simple answer to your challenge.

Re-read [Human exceptionalism proves it. Humans think abstractly, they can envision, and explore deeper truths. We comprehend grandeur and beauty in the world. And only humans have the capability of moral agency. Other species do not share this. This is more than enough evidence showing the equal value each human life has in merely being human.] As has already been described by many people before me, all of the science and what makes us unique as humans makes our intrinsic value a “self-evident truth”.

I 100% called it. Science can only get you as far as "human are smart and uniquely, only humans have moral agency," not to intrinsic value, let alone equal intrinsic value. And when I asked you for the reasoning in that jump in logic, you appealed to your own intuition, and the intuitions of those who agrees with you. Intuition is not a reliable way to the truth. What you are calling "science and reason," is nothing of the sort. You are passing your own opinion off as facts.

I don’t understand what you are asking. Are you saying why aren’t humans who have greater capability worth more?

Yes, that's what I was asking. If value is based upon the capability of moral agency and comprehension of beauty, then why aren't those with greater capability more valuable?

The statement isn’t really a religious one. It simply acknowledges the intrinsic value/right to life of every human in simply being human.

It isn't specific to any one particular religion, but it absolutely is religious. It acknowledges that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. There was no need to mention God, but they did, making it religious. Either way, it would still be an appeal to intuition, with or without the mention of God.

This is something both the religious and secular can acknowledge.

Appealing to secular intuition now, are we? Yeah, about that, the UN Human Rights Committee has acknowledge that access to safe abortions is a human rights. Not so self-evidently true now, is it?

Why should the woman have the final say? We are talking about a separate unique human life... If the state or father can’t abort a child due to economic reasons, why can a woman?

Because the woman have that right. Nobody else does.

Also, that life has a father as well. What about his say?

He doesn't get a say, he is not the one pregnant.

No one can force her to be a parent. We have adoption and safe houses. Please watch this. It does a great job of pointing out the illogic of the pro choice position and their cries of, “No forced birth!” as a false opposition to eliminating abortion.

https://edify.us/video/how-to-change-minds-on-abortion/

That's just a propaganda piece designed to inflate pro-lifers' confidence, you are their target audience; it's not meant for us because the arguments presented cannot stand up in an adversarial, debate setting. Not least the bait-and-switch fallacy from "forced birth" to "forced parenthood." That one is not forced to be a parent doesn't imply one isn't forced to give birth now, does it?

How about we try to support women so they can keep their children like the social research shows they want to? How about that?

Our side is trying, universal health care, free childcare, generous child tax credit for the poor. The other side is doing everything they can to stop any progress on that front in the name of, "no, that's socialism!" Incidentally, it's the same "other side" that is standing in the way of decreasing unwanted pregnancy in the first place re: sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

Riiiiiiiiiiight . . . . because the child is a human life, right? And human life is protected? Hmmmmm . . . .

No, but because I have personally determined that they are valuable, using my own opinion.

Huh? How is accessing thru technology what is going on in a woman’s uterus emotional?

Simple, because fetuses bear superficial resemblance to new born babies. It's the same reason why abortion protestors show (often faked) images of fetuses outside of clinics. There is nothing wrong with using technology to see what is going on inside a woman’s womb. It's how your side want the information to be presented that makes it is an appeal to emotion.

Who in the world would oppose access to information?

Those who set up "crisis pregnancy centers" of course, with their explicit aim to "dissuade women from choosing abortion," passing off misinformation as medical advice. For those people, the end justify the means, no matter who they hurt.

And I maintain clownboat’s hypothetical does NOT indicate the value of human life. If it did, heaven help us! “Let’s save only the pretty ones!”

"Let's," you say? Because in clownboat's hypothetical, you would choose who to save from a fire based on how pretty they look? This would say a lot more about your stance than it does ours.

And while I can understand the emotion based argument for abortion, that is all the pro choice position has...

You've already affirmed on multiple occasions that it is beneficial economically to society. So even by your own account, emotionally based argument is not all the pro-choice has now, is it?

Abortion is not pro women. It makes no sense other than for a short term selfish economic based solution that ends up harming more people in the long run (including women, children, and society at large).

Most women would disagree with you (as demonstrated by Gallup polls, despite you insisting otherwise,) and to hammer the point above home: you've accepted that there an economic benefit for society at large, confirmed once again with terms such as "economic liabilities" and "productivity/usefulness."

A country that permits mothers to kill their own children is a country that devalues life. This devaluing then overflows into other areas of life. If we can’t protect and respect the unborn, then how can we be expected to protect and respect the vulnerable, marginalized, those who can’t speak for themselves, those who don’t look like us, those who may be seen as economic liabilities? Part of what it means to be a human is protecting and respecting each other from womb to tomb. That is beautiful and the only thing that makes sense, less we are all reduced to our productivity/usefulness.

There goes the appeal to emotion again, that's all that's left without the "self-evident truth" propped up with religious fervor. We protect and respect the vulnerable, marginalized, etc just fine; if you haven't noticed already, said vulnerable and marginalized in general, tend to align politically with the pro-choice side.