ForestBoard

sex is boring, and we should all strive to reproduce asexually by splitting into two mini-versions of ourselves.

Rhodevus wrote:

a bunch of things are based on roe, or use the same precedents as roe, such as gay marriage and legal contraception. and technically interracial marriage. It took alabama 4 days following roe's overturning to use the court's own words to work to get transgender healthcare banned.

Justice Thomas already said that they should look into the court ruling which legalized gay marriage.

Also, abortion is about healthcare, which is a federal issue, not state one.
Gun control is still up for debate whether it is state or federal issue. If it's a conservative state, it's a state right. but if you are in a liberal state, then it is federal. We know this, cuz the supreme court struck down a state law which was in place to reduce handgun ownership.

Hello everyone. Interesting legal point brought up here. Yes the wording of Alito's opinion, and the decision itself, have a dangerously large impact on legal precedent as it relates to civil liberties. The specific cases that are threatened include (but are not limited too) Griswold v. Connecticut (the right of married couples to have contraception without government restriction) Lawrence v Texas (gay marriage) Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). All of these are threatened because part of Alito's argument is that Roe is not implied in the constitution because it abotion, in his opinion, is not rooted in American tradition, so one of the questions raised could be about the traditionalism of gay or interracial marriage, or contraception, all of which don't have much in the way of traditional history (that isn't to say they have no history, simply that in the eyes of the conservative justices on the court it is likely that they would not say these have traditional history in the US.).Alito's opinion did also explicitly say that he wasn't attempting to attack precedent of cases that didn't relate specifically to abortion, however Thomas said that he did want to attack precedent so there is a bit of a dilemma there (although I doubt anyone thinks that this won't affect larger precedents surrounding privacy and civil liberties and Alito knows this)

A side note, the logic behind Roe has been functionally dead for decades as it relies on the idea that abortions become unsafe after a certain point, and fetuses become viable later in pregnancy. The problem with this is that technology has evolved in the intervening years so that those lines overlap, you can have safe abortions throughout the majority of pregnancy, but you can also have a foetus that could survive earlier in the pregnancy thanks to other medical advancements, so the case that really holds up abortion (or did until this SC decision) was Casey v Planned Parenthood.

Thats just a brief summary of a few points I find interesting about the implications of this decision. I haven't read all the way to the beginning of the conversation so all of these may have been mentioned in detail before in which case this only served as a long reminder.

I hope everyone is having a lovely day (although if you are living in the US I understand why that may be trickier to do)

Good points all, I'm glad that all sides here recognise there's a moral weighing up to be made, even if we reach different conclusions.

Personally I would say there is a difference between invoking bodily autonomy to refuse to sustain the life of a foetus, and actively engaging in an action that ends the life of a foetus, which is what abortion entails.

To take the kidney transplant analogy, I'd say a closer analogy would be a Siamese twin choosing to be separated from his dependent twin, whose life is nonsustainable after separation. The first twin claims they have no responsibility to the second twins life because the working kidneys are part of their body. The second twin points out that the two exist as a physical continuum, and he will die if separated.

To me thd only question is... is the foetus a human life of value?

Does anyone have a link to an issues site that allows me to find out which issues can get rid of a policy? I accidentally legalized child labor and I’m trying to get rid of it XD

Lura wrote:

Lawrence v. Texas was actually to do with anti-sodomy laws, so rather than gay marriage, it actually is more about gay sex (sodomy is broader than just the type gay men usually do, but that is I'm sure what the laws were actually for). The decision about gay marriage was Obergefell v. Hodges, which was also brought up by Thomas, I think.

Unfortunately, this makes this even worse as a precedent to have set, since not only are all the rights you've listed up for contention in the SCOTUS, but also the right to have any form of sex that can't result in impregnation (primarily targeting LGBT+ people).

Still, Loving v. Virginia would have probably been brought up had Clarence Thomas not actually been in an interracial relationship (and might I add that the only reason I exist is because of L v. T, so this is a pretty scary time for me and my family). It’s terrifying that our country is going after some of the world’s most basic rights and in the process turning this “first-world country” into a third world country. I cannot believe they’re going after sodomy and same-sex marriage. Most countries are moving towards leagilizing same-sex marriage—and look at us. And going after contraception? Seriously? It’ll be all fun and games until the boys start walking into Walgreens and Plan B isn’t there anymore.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

To me thd only question is... is the foetus a human life of value?

At first I had an answer in mind but your question has really made me rethink a lot of things. Let me put it this way (DISCLAIMER: This is all my opinion - these are just my thoughts - I do not at all mean to offend anyone by saying this! >_>) Is an unborn fetus more important than it’s mother? Personally, no. The mother is an already born living being. The fetus (especially when under 30 weeks) hasn’t even developed most of its major organs. So I would put it this way - until it’s over ~30 weeks, no, the fetus is not yet a human life. I won’t say of value, because value is subjective. If I get married and have a child, that fetus would be of very high value to me and the partner with which I have a child with. Another woman’s fetus? I’ll never know them and therefore it’s harder for that fetus to have value to me. Which bring me to say that it doesn’t mean I don’t value that fetus, I just don’t know them and therefore cannot value them the way that the mother might.

in the context of environmental reality, the banning of abortions is completely illogical.
and choosing to not believe in reality never makes it go entirely away.

granted there are a whole bunch of reasons, to make them a last resort, but none to make them unavailable.

genocide and war are the unthinkable, and far less long term then they might otherwise appear.
and encouraging them instead, really is immoral.

we can invent viagra, we can dam sure invent broad spectrum anti-fertillity for humans.

and population is the one real problem with sex. morality is consideration, evil is the lack of it.
because of how the kind of world it makes for all of us to have to live in.
which is does regardless of what we want or believe or say we do.
we don't live in universe that pays attention, but we live in one we can learn, and regulate ourselves accordingly.

and yes, the anti-lgb et al, is the same illogical only more so.

Yoakekuni wrote:

Is an unborn fetus more important than it’s mother? Personally, no. The mother is an already born living being. The fetus (especially when under 30 weeks) hasn’t even developed most of its major organs. So I would put it this way - until it’s over ~30 weeks, no, the fetus is not yet a human life. I won’t say of value, because value is subjective. If I get married and have a child, that fetus would be of very high value to me and the partner with which I have a child with. Another woman’s fetus? I’ll never know them and therefore it’s harder for that fetus to have value to me. Which bring me to say that it doesn’t mean I don’t value that fetus, I just don’t know them and therefore cannot value them the way that the mother might.

This is an interesting answer, because it suggests that a life's value is based on its meaning to other people, and its self-awareness. That's reasonable to some degree, though it has uncomfortable potential sequelae.

For example, I have three children. The nine year old has a developing sense of self and ethics, and is quite clever and popular. The six year old is just as clever, but less socially gregarious, and has fewer achievements. The twelve year old is disabled, and does not talk or have the same sense of self. Mirrors still amuse and confuse her. She doesn't have friends as such.

Yet is her life worth less than theirs? Is the six year old worth less than the nine year old? Is my life worth more than my sons, because I have more knowledge and societal value than both of them? Do we need to consider potential? The boys have more than me, but the girl has less, in least of terms of achievement and mental acuity. But then, she has more happiness and joy than any of us. She perhaps carries more love than the rest of us. So by what quantity do we measure the worth of a human's life?

So taken to extremis, the unborn baby, who has no sense of self and no capabilities, and who is still a human being, are they worth less in the balance? What of its potential attachment and love for its parents, or the life it may lead? Do these need to be taken into consideration?

Or do we perhaps say that a life is a life is a life, and to assign greater worth is morally wrong?

But then, what of the newly fertilised egg, which is just one cell with no mind or brain? Do we have to consider its potential? What of the unfertilised egg that passes with each menstrual cycle?

So to me, there is a continuum, but I find it very uncomfortable to say that a human being with a brain is worth less than any other human being with a brain.

Likewise, I'm not sure I recognise that a parent's right to autonomy extends to their offspring. A mother and father have a responsibility to their children, but not the right to harm, hurt or kill them, though grey areas exist. A baby has as much right not to be killed as ten year old does. A parent has equally little right to kill their baby as they do their ten year old child.

So extending that back, at what stage do we recognise that a parent has no right to kill the unborn baby?

Great julunaphra wrote:

just my two cents here, but i don't think that the factor of whether or not someone in your company has had an abortion should deter you from working there.

and to the point about having an abortion at 6 months, i'm a little iffy on that simply because by that point it could be considered third trimester, and I believe that if you haven't considered the possibility of abortion to that point (unless it had some health related issues with either the fetus or the mother), it just seems kind of like, weird because at that point the baby is already "sentient", in the way that it's most likely kicking and the brain is fully developed. So I'm all for a woman having the right to choose, with some restriction after the third trimester begins, although as I believe I stated earlier, it should not be up to a man to decide laws that impact a woman's body.

but, if your boss killed their 6 month, I bet you'd not want to work there.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Or do we perhaps say that a life is a life is a life, and to assign greater worth is morally wrong?

But then, what of the newly fertilised egg, which is just one cell with no mind or brain? Do we have to consider its potential? What of the unfertilised egg that passes with each menstrual cycle?

So to me, there is a continuum, but I find it very uncomfortable to say that a human being with a brain is worth less than any other human being with a brain.

Likewise, I'm not sure I recognise that a parent's right to autonomy extends to their offspring. A mother and father have a responsibility to their children, but not the right to harm, hurt or kill them, though grey areas exist. A baby has as much right not to be killed as ten year old does. A parent has equally little right to kill their baby as they do their ten year old child.

So extending that back, at what stage do we recognise that a parent has no right to kill the unborn baby?

The central question to the abortion debate really boils down to at point we view a "clump of cells" as human and thus believe it is wrong to kill/murder a human. I personally think life begins at conception while others think it begins at birth (and all the various stages in-between).

Jutsa wrote:

As a virgin past-20 individual with the mind of both a teenager and a middle-aged/elderly woman* accompanied by unnaturally low impulses, and as your supreme overlord, I must vehemently disagree,

Ruinenlust wrote:

Well, this is slight digression on the main conversation, but I'd say that it's highly situational. If I were in a lovely relationship with a live-in boyfriend, then yeah. But as a single person, sex becomes a project. You have to actually get someone, do small talk, arrange to meet, etc. etc., and it's almost always the same song and dance. Maybe I just suffer from low impulses along with Jutsa, or from the lack of novelty at this point, or the fatigue of those wretched "dating" (read: hookup) apps, or just being single, but it's basically not worth it, to me, probably since it's lacking the actual "relationship" component. Banana's at the aspirational level, and Jutsa's much closer to the reality for me, lol.

These are not unreasonable and before I met my now fiancé, I was voluntarily celibate for a number of years. I agree that it's a hoo ha and I was quite happy being single and celibate.

However, I get kinda annoyed with what are usually online, teenage virgins proclaiming consent to sex is consent to pregnancy or that procreation is the purpose of sex, thereby directly having a go at the majority of couples where one partner is not a woman of child bearing age. It's ageist and homophobic. And that's leaving aside the obvious fact that most couples where one of the partners is in fact a woman of child bearing age, they are not trying to get pregnant most of the time they go horizontal jogging.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

The real reason that people want to ban abortions, is so that there are more gender reveal parties. It's all a ploy by Big-Baby trying to get you to buy their blue and pink dyes and poppers and 'it's an X' balloons!

new supreme court case.
Goodbye clean air in the USA

I took the Acela! (The American bullet train, which goes quite slow XD)

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

abortion snip

You bring up some excellent points, most of which I cannot argue with. In retrospect, I phrased what I said terribly, and I deeply apologize for that. I do not believe that value of life should be measured by one’s “potential” to do something; nor do I believe that any one life is more valuable than another’s. When I said “fetus”, I was only referring to the unborn fetus and not the fetus and its later life.

Rhodevus wrote:

new supreme court case.
Goodbye clean air in the USA

Once again SCOTUS shows it no longer serves the people