BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS

[Kingpoleon]

Before I explain why your analogy doesn't work, let's hear an actual response to the thought experiment I presented.

You asked what one would do, rather than what one should do; you failed to demonstrate that a woman getting an abortion was choosing to save one born baby’s life over a thousand unborn baby’s life; and you completely failed to finish your postulation with priors or posteriors.

If I say you shouldn’t beat dogs, and then you say “But you wouldn’t stop someone from beating a dog if the building were on fire!!” you haven’t really addressed the moral validity of beating a dog. Rather, you would have demonstrated that you’re uncomfortable with defending dog beating and attempted to make me feel uncomfortable for opposing it.

[Alben Barkley]

Everyone here is mad at RBG, but who you should REALLY be mad at is Anthony Kennedy. That asshole is still alive, but voluntarily retired KNOWING that Donald f--king Trump would appoint his replacement.

I agree RBG should have retired while Obama was still president, but I can't totally blame her for wanting to hold out for the poetry of being replaced by the first female president (and also the wife of the man who appointed her!). Was it worth the risk? No. Can I at least see why she did it? Yeah. Especially considering few thought Trump actually could win at the time.

Kennedy however just completely threw the social liberals he had been helping under the bus, basically. He did it knowingly and deliberately, seemingly with no care at all for whether all the decisions he had passionately defended would be undone or not. Makes you question his entire motives from start to finish.

[Alben Barkley]

Before I explain why your analogy doesn't work, let's hear an actual response to the thought experiment I presented.

You asked what one would do, rather than what one should do; you failed to demonstrate that a woman getting an abortion was choosing to save one born baby’s life over a thousand unborn baby’s life; and you completely failed to finish your postulation with priors or posteriors.

If I say you shouldn’t beat dogs, and then you say “But you wouldn’t stop someone from beating a dog if the building were on fire!!” you haven’t really addressed the moral validity of beating a dog. Rather, you would have demonstrated that you’re uncomfortable with defending dog beating and attempted to make me feel uncomfortable for opposing it.

So, you STILL haven't answered the question...

[brucejoel99]

They aren't going to ban abortion or completely overturn Roe v. Wade.

Most likely scenario is they allow some of the restrictions red states are trying to pass through, but it will have little practical effect because those states have already minimized abortion access through various means anyway. Blue states will still be free to keep things as they are with no significant changes.

That's my prediction, anyway.

This is pretty obviously the likeliest outcome, given that - again - the only question which the Court actually chose to grant cert on was "are all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion unconstitutional?" Within the scope of said question, the worst that the Court can really do is only hold that not all pre-viability abortion bans are automatically unconstitutional (i.e., that some can indeed be valid) before then remanding the rest of the case back to the lower courts to try & decide whether or not the MS restriction in & of itself is constitutional, thereby leaving a decision concerning the particular details thereof for another day. For the time being, though, the central holdings of Roe/Casey - that women still hold the constitutional right to have an abortion - won't be touched in that the confines of this case as they're currently constituted don't really provide an angle through which they can even be touched yet, at least insofar as the Court doesn't really have the ability to say anything here beyond "we're open to hearing states out on why pre-viability bans may be constitutional."

Granted, this obviously helps to lay the groundwork for a potential "death-by-a-thousand-cuts" approach at striking down the foundations of our abortion jurisprudence, but it's not the inherent death-knell that many are arguing it is in & of itself.

[Santander]

Everyone here is mad at RBG, but who you should REALLY be mad at is Anthony Kennedy. That asshole is still alive, but voluntarily retired KNOWING that Donald f--king Trump would appoint his replacement.

I agree RBG should have retired while Obama was still president, but I can't totally blame her for wanting to hold out for the poetry of being replaced by the first female president (and also the wife of the man who appointed her!). Was it worth the risk? No. Can I at least see why she did it? Yeah. Especially considering few thought Trump actually could win at the time.

Kennedy however just completely threw the social liberals he had been helping under the bus, basically. He did it knowingly and deliberately, seemingly with no care at all for whether all the decisions he had passionately defended would be undone or not. Makes you question his entire motives from start to finish.

So an octogenarian isn't allowed to retire now?

[John Dule]

Before I explain why your analogy doesn't work, let's hear an actual response to the thought experiment I presented.

You asked what one would do, rather than what one should do; you failed to demonstrate that a woman getting an abortion was choosing to save one born baby’s life over a thousand unborn baby’s life; and you completely failed to finish your postulation with priors or posteriors.

If I say you shouldn’t beat dogs, and then you say “But you wouldn’t stop someone from beating a dog if the building were on fire!!” you haven’t really addressed the moral validity of beating a dog. Rather, you would have demonstrated that you’re uncomfortable with defending dog beating and attempted to make me feel uncomfortable for opposing it.

I'll ignore this entire post because it is obfuscatory gibberish. However, for those of you keeping track at home, the obvious point is this: If life truly begins at conception, and one fetus is equivalent to a fully grown human being, then letting the 1,000 embryos burn would be 1000x worse than letting one baby burn. However, no one but the most hardcore ideologues would choose the embryos over the infant-- proving that we all implicitly accept the premise that a fetus is not the same as a human being (even if some of us are not willing to admit it).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They aren't going to ban abortion or completely overturn Roe v. Wade.

Most likely scenario is they allow some of the restrictions red states are trying to pass through, but it will have little practical effect because those states have already minimized abortion access through various means anyway. Blue states will still be free to keep things as they are with no significant changes.

That's my prediction, anyway.

This is pretty obviously the likeliest outcome, given that - again - the only question which the Court actually chose to grant cert on was "are all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion unconstitutional?" Within the scope of said question, the worst that the Court can really do is only hold that not all pre-viability abortion bans are automatically unconstitutional (i.e., that some can indeed be valid) before then remanding the rest of the case back to the lower courts to try & decide whether or not the MS restriction in & of itself is constitutional, thereby leaving a decision concerning the particular details thereof for another day. For the time being, though, the central holdings of Roe/Casey - that women still hold the constitutional right to have an abortion - won't be touched in that the confines of this case as they're currently constituted don't really provide an angle through which they can even be touched yet, at least insofar as the Court doesn't really have the ability to say anything here beyond "we're open to hearing states out on why pre-viability bans may be constitutional."

Granted, this obviously helps to lay the groundwork for a potential "death-by-a-thousand-cuts" approach at striking down the foundations of our abortion jurisprudence, but it's not the inherent death-knell that many are arguing it is in & of itself.

Abortion are not necessary unless the moms health is at stake, it's just an emotional attachment to the child if she gives it up for adoption

[GALeftist]

Everyone here is mad at RBG, but who you should REALLY be mad at is Anthony Kennedy. That asshole is still alive, but voluntarily retired KNOWING that Donald f--king Trump would appoint his replacement.

I agree RBG should have retired while Obama was still president, but I can't totally blame her for wanting to hold out for the poetry of being replaced by the first female president (and also the wife of the man who appointed her!). Was it worth the risk? No. Can I at least see why she did it? Yeah. Especially considering few thought Trump actually could win at the time.

Kennedy however just completely threw the social liberals he had been helping under the bus, basically. He did it knowingly and deliberately, seemingly with no care at all for whether all the decisions he had passionately defended would be undone or not. Makes you question his entire motives from start to finish.

So an octogenarian isn't allowed to retire now?

Not that octogenarian. I'm still half convinced Trump had dirt on him or something but more likely he was just another horrid individual

[Kingpoleon]

I'll ignore this entire post because it is obfuscatory gibberish. However, for those of you keeping track at home, the obvious point is this: If life truly begins at conception, and one fetus is equivalent to a fully grown human being, then letting the 1,000 embryos burn would be 1000x worse than letting one baby burn. However, no one but the most hardcore ideologues would choose the embryos over the infant-- proving that we all implicitly accept the premise that a fetus is not the same as a human being (even if some of us are not willing to admit it).

You are so impressively incompetent at moral philosophy it is stunning. I accept, as a basic fact, that I have been raised in a culture with a deep bias against the unborn; and, in truth, I would probably save the baby. But I ought to save the thousand, almost certainly.

I should also note that I would save my mother over a thousand strangers - this is not morally justified. There’s a reason arguments from analogy are considered the weakest possible argument in philosophy - they fall apart on examination. You can keep applauding yourself all you like - you have failed to assert whether or not all will be implanted or not; whether or not the action of abortion is itself justified; and really any pro choice stance at all. If I say “You ought not step on a lizard purposefully,” and you then attempt to justify it by saying it would be better than stepping on a human baby, you have completely and totally failed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Before there were abortions in the 1950s, females were fine in giving up their babies for an adoption

[Kingpoleon]

So, you STILL haven't answered the question...

If I ask you, “Does the Sun to around the Earth or the moon?” you have no obligation to answer - you are totally justified in rejecting the very premise of the question. There are some serious and challenging pro choice arguments out there - you and Dule are failing to make them.

[John Dule]

You are so impressively incompetent at moral philosophy it is stunning. I accept, as a basic fact, that I have been raised in a culture with a deep bias against the unborn; and, in truth, I would probably save the baby. But I ought to save the thousand, almost certainly.

I should also note that I would save my mother over a thousand strangers - this is not morally justified. There’s a reason arguments from analogy are considered the weakest possible argument in philosophy - they fall apart on examination. You can keep applauding yourself all you like - you have failed to assert whether or not all will be implanted or not; whether or not the action of abortion is itself justified; and really any pro choice stance at all. If I say “You ought not step on a lizard purposefully,” and you then attempt to justify it by saying it would be better than stepping on a human baby, you have completely and totally failed.

This isn't an analogy. It's a thought experiment that is designed to make you consider the logical implications of your position. You are the only person who has made an argument from analogy in this conversation. Anyway, at least you've answered my question-- you believe that allowing the baby to burn is the correct course of action, and saving the embryos is more important. What I like about this thought experiment is that it is a no-win scenario for pro-lifers; either you endorse a position that negates your own philosophy, or you endorse a position that is blatant in its moral repugnance. In this instance, I thank you for choosing the latter. It makes for much more entertaining reading.

[afleitch]

I'll ignore this entire post because it is obfuscatory gibberish. However, for those of you keeping track at home, the obvious point is this: If life truly begins at conception, and one fetus is equivalent to a fully grown human being, then letting the 1,000 embryos burn would be 1000x worse than letting one baby burn. However, no one but the most hardcore ideologues would choose the embryos over the infant-- proving that we all implicitly accept the premise that a fetus is not the same as a human being (even if some of us are not willing to admit it).

You are so impressively incompetent at moral philosophy it is stunning. I accept, as a basic fact, that I have been raised in a culture with a deep bias against the unborn; and, in truth, I would probably save the baby. But I ought to save the thousand, almost certainly.

You don't 'live in a culture with a deep bias against the unborn.' You live with the born. That's the point. You're supposed to empathise with a screaming child not a petri dish. You have warped and immoral sensibilities if you don't.

[Kingpoleon]

This isn't an analogy. It's a thought experiment that is designed to make you consider the logical implications of your position. You are the only person who has made an argument from analogy in this conversation. Anyway, at least you've answered my question-- you believe that allowing the baby to burn is the correct course of action, and saving the embryos is more important. What I like about this thought experiment is that it is a no-win scenario for pro-lifers; either you endorse a position that negates your own philosophy, or you endorse a position that is blatant in its moral repugnance. In this instance, I thank you for choosing the latter. It makes for much more entertaining reading.

This talk of moral repugnance from someone who measures human value in terms of brain development is impressively condescending.

If we ought to determine how valuable people are based off of brain development, then infanticide ought to be legalized - or at least decriminalized. Bioethicists who are pro choice have mostly hit the bullet here and argued for legalizing infanticide. Very few of them have gone all the way through here and argued that it is morally justified to sentence people differently based upon how smart or strong they are. This is inconsistent.

You don't 'live in a culture with a deep bias against the unborn.' You live with the born. That's the point. You're supposed to empathise with a screaming child not a petri dish. You have warped and immoral sensibilities if you don't.

There are two separate immoral things that happen to the baby here: one is the pain it endures; the other is its death. If you wish to argue that the pain of one leading unto death is worse than a thousand painless deaths, feel free to do so - I cannot. It is great to see a libertarian and a socialist - who normally are total moral relativists - at last show a hint of moral fiber and wrathful judgment. It is unfortunate that this is the issue you have chosen to be so hateful on, when my position justifies more hate than yours does, yet you are more hateful than I.

[John Dule]

This talk of moral repugnance from someone who measures human value in terms of brain development is impressively condescending.

If we ought to determine how valuable people are based off of brain development, then infanticide ought to be legalized - or at least decriminalized. Bioethicists who are pro choice have mostly hit the bullet here and argued for legalizing infanticide. Very few of them have gone all the way through here and argued that it is morally justified to sentence people differently based upon how smart or strong they are. This is inconsistent.

Who said that I measured human value in terms of brain development? You are obfuscating again, this time by completely fabricating an argument that I never made. This is consistent with your style of argumentation on this site-- while you're clearly intelligent and articulate, you consistently put minimal effort into reading and comprehending what the other person is saying. This leads to awkward situations like this one, in which you argue against a claim that the other person never made, using logic that doesn't follow and employing terminology that nobody else understands. I literally cannot engage with this post because (though well-reasoned) it doesn't address any point I made in this thread. Are you just trying to derail the conversation?

[Kingpoleon]

Who said that I measured human value in terms of brain development? You are obfuscating again, this time by completely fabricating an argument that I never made. This is consistent with your style of argumentation on this site-- while you're clearly intelligent and articulate, you consistently put minimal effort into reading and comprehending what the other person is saying. This leads to awkward situations like this one, in which you argue against a claim that the other person never made, using logic that doesn't follow and employing terminology that nobody else understands. I literally cannot engage with this post because (though well-reasoned) it doesn't address any point I made in this thread. Are you just trying to derail the conversation?

I rather derive readings without explicit exegesis. Allow me to shortly demonstrate my exegesis of your post:

1. The primary difference between a zygote and a newborn is brain development.
2. The newborn is more valuable than the zygote.
3. Therefore, we ought to measure value via brain development.

If there is another reason that you choose the born baby over a thousand unborn babies, feel free to explain it.

[afleitch]

Who said that I measured human value in terms of brain development? You are obfuscating again, this time by completely fabricating an argument that I never made. This is consistent with your style of argumentation on this site-- while you're clearly intelligent and articulate, you consistently put minimal effort into reading and comprehending what the other person is saying. This leads to awkward situations like this one, in which you argue against a claim that the other person never made, using logic that doesn't follow and employing terminology that nobody else understands. I literally cannot engage with this post because (though well-reasoned) it doesn't address any point I made in this thread. Are you just trying to derail the conversation?

I rather derive readings without explicit exegesis. Allow me to shortly demonstrate my exegesis of your post:

1. The primary difference between a zygote and a newborn is brain development.
2. The newborn is more valuable than the zygote.
3. Therefore, we ought to measure value via brain development.

If there is another reason that you choose the born baby over a thousand unborn babies, feel free to explain it.

I've held my nieces as babies, fed, changed and burped them. Made them laugh. The choice of saving a born baby is really easy.

That you struggle to not only see that, but to condemn me and Dule is really disturbing. You're dehumanising by resorting to nothing but thought experiments with respect to human life and human experience.

[EastwoodS]

Democrats in January  2021: oH mY gOd, Democrats have all three branches, can’t wait for statehood, massive gun control, HR 1, UBI, increased abortion rights, 15 dollar minimum wage, banning of gerrymandering all by the SUMMER1!1!2!2!2!1!1!2!
Oh hehe and Biden is the next FDR, get used to it fascist 🧚🧚🥳🌈💅
Reality enters the chat: wellllll hoooow dO you do??

[Flyersfan232]

Well I guess I expected people to realize I wasn't meaning to literally cover all of human history when I said "no one has ever said..."

Obviously, as evidenced by the very article he linked, abortion rates will go down some, just not to 0. I don't think any relevant figures on the pro-choice side (not just talking about message board anonymos) are alleging the rate will stay the same

Most pro choice people I’ve talked to on the subject have assured me that abortion rates will go up.

Banning anything doesn’t reduce use of it to zero. If somebody who was PL has told you that banning abortion would prevent all abortions, they were factually wrong.

so murder  being illegal is basicly useless

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Democrats in January  2021: oH mY gOd, Democrats have all three branches, can’t wait for statehood, massive gun control, HR 1, UBI, increased abortion rights, 15 dollar minimum wage, banning of gerrymandering all by the SUMMER1!1!2!2!2!1!1!2!
Reality enters the chat: wellllll hoooow dO you do??

Manchin is endangered of losing anyways in 2024/ even in a Neutral Environment he won't survived, he doesn't have the backbone to nuke the Filibuster or push thru Statehood

But the Election is 500 days it's a Neutral Environment not an R wave which can blossom into a blue Wave

[Person Man]

Well I guess I expected people to realize I wasn't meaning to literally cover all of human history when I said "no one has ever said..."

Obviously, as evidenced by the very article he linked, abortion rates will go down some, just not to 0. I don't think any relevant figures on the pro-choice side (not just talking about message board anonymos) are alleging the rate will stay the same

Most pro choice people I’ve talked to on the subject have assured me that abortion rates will go up.

Banning anything doesn’t reduce use of it to zero. If somebody who was PL has told you that banning abortion would prevent all abortions, they were factually wrong.

so murder  being illegal is basicly useless

The major difference is that one of these issues is bullsh**t. It just is. There is something not normal about referencing biochemistry as some sort of replacement for organic empathy in determining civil rights and social/personal responsibility. It’s weird. Just like it’s weird to justify incest or something like that.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

If a building was burning down and you could save either a newborn baby or 1,000 fertilized human embryos in test tubes, which would you save? If it's the baby, congrats-- you're pro-choice. Get over yourself.

What if the baby is Baby Hitler, though?

[Person Man]

If a building was burning down and you could save either a newborn baby or 1,000 fertilized human embryos in test tubes, which would you save? If it's the baby, congrats-- you're pro-choice. Get over yourself.

What if the baby is Baby Hitler, though?

Or adult Hitler?

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

[Ferguson97]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

This line of thinking is so disgusting.

[John Dule]

Who said that I measured human value in terms of brain development? You are obfuscating again, this time by completely fabricating an argument that I never made. This is consistent with your style of argumentation on this site-- while you're clearly intelligent and articulate, you consistently put minimal effort into reading and comprehending what the other person is saying. This leads to awkward situations like this one, in which you argue against a claim that the other person never made, using logic that doesn't follow and employing terminology that nobody else understands. I literally cannot engage with this post because (though well-reasoned) it doesn't address any point I made in this thread. Are you just trying to derail the conversation?

I rather derive readings without explicit exegesis.

Well, you should stop because you are extremely bad at it.