Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6777
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by Doc » Tue May 10, 2022 11:34 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 9:41 am
You may find the Portuguese experience with abortion interesting.

In Portugal abortion is free, and has no costs to the woman, up to 10 weeks pregnancy.

About 16,000 abortions per year are carried out in Portugal.

Every year about 600 women go to Spain for an abortion (4%).

The main reason is that abortion may be carried out in Spain up to 14 weeks into the pregnancy.

We may conclude that about 96% of women wishing to abort can solve their problem within the (rather strict) limits of the Portuguese law, which seems to be very satisfactory.

Why hasn't the problem found a satisfactory solution in the US, beats me...
Makes sense. The issue with Abortion in the US is that the envelope for Abortion keeps getting pushed further and further out. It has been pushed to the point that politicians have said that it is even OK for a baby to be born and then denied care after birth so it dies. IE "post birth abortion"

My biggest issue with abortion is that it is a form of negative Eugenics by definition, and in practice is any pressure, including social pressure, is placed on the woman. I have known woman that had 5 abortions before they were 25 years old. How many abortions is enough? The same movement that supports abortion on demand is the same movement that supported forces sterilizations of "Sexually insatiable Female Morons". Lest they "threaten the nation by out breading the "well bred"

https://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/

By the same people that are demanding "Diversity"

The best argument for Abortion is that without it women are being forced to carry another life inside them that they don't want. Outside the obvious that their own actions in the overwhelming majority of cases is what caused them to be in that predicament babies are now born regularly after 21 weeks and survive outside of their mother's bodies. So why instead of having an abortion not having a premature birth. Then adoption? There is large excess of couples that are unable to have children in the US than available children to adopt.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue May 10, 2022 11:57 am

Doc wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 11:34 am
Makes sense. The issue with Abortion in the US is that the envelope for Abortion keeps getting pushed further and further out. It has been pushed to the point that politicians have said that it is even OK for a baby to be born and then denied care after birth so it dies. IE "post birth abortion"
Citation needed.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6777
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by Doc » Tue May 10, 2022 2:08 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 11:57 am
Doc wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 11:34 am
Makes sense. The issue with Abortion in the US is that the envelope for Abortion keeps getting pushed further and further out. It has been pushed to the point that politicians have said that it is even OK for a baby to be born and then denied care after birth so it dies. IE "post birth abortion"
Citation needed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307
Virginia's Democratic Governor Ralph Northam defended the bill in an interview to radio station WTOP.

The paediatric neurologist said the measure allowed termination "in cases where there may be severe deformities" or when there is a "foetus that's not viable" outside the womb.

"So in this particular example, if a mother's in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he told WTOP's Ask the Governor programme Wednesday.

"The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
"
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue May 10, 2022 3:57 pm

And from that, you derived "it is even OK for a baby to be born and then denied care after birth so it dies. IE 'post birth abortion'"?

Denied care? An infant that cannot survive outside the womb that is receiving care to be kept from suffering in the meantime?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 5668
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by cassowary » Tue May 10, 2022 7:32 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 4:08 pm
Doc, why do you Americans make such a long, agonizing melodrama over the issue of abortion? Dozens of other countries seem to have settled on a position ages ago without kicking up a big song and dance.
In most countries, the issue is settled democratically. The will of the majority prevails. But in America, the courts can overrule the will of the majority.

In other countries, you elect politicians who reflect what the voters want - outright ban or outright allowance of abortion or something in between. Say no abortion in the first 4 months of pregnancy.

Currently, the court allows the most liberal abortion law in the world. Thus you get a lot of unhappy people.
The Imp :D

User avatar
neverfail
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by neverfail » Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm

cassowary wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 7:32 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 4:08 pm
Doc, why do you Americans make such a long, agonizing melodrama over the issue of abortion? Dozens of other countries seem to have settled on a position ages ago without kicking up a big song and dance.
In most countries, the issue is settled democratically. The will of the majority prevails. But in America, the courts can overrule the will of the majority.

In other countries, you elect politicians who reflect what the voters want - outright ban or outright allowance of abortion or something in between. Say no abortion in the first 4 months of pregnancy.

Currently, the court allows the most liberal abortion law in the world. Thus you get a lot of unhappy people.
Thanks for the response Cass which I truly appreciate. But the response has sparked off my thought processes so please permit me to partially disagree.

Your point about their Supreme Court overruling long established practice (recalling that America's relatively permissive abortion laws were made possible by a civil suit in that same court half a century ago - it was not due to a political ruling by elected officials) - is valid. But there is a twist to the tale that needs considering.

All nations have a highest court in the land. The UK has its Privy Council; we in Australia have our High Court in Canberra for instance. From either of these institutions you can anticipate a fair and impartial ruling. The panel of judges are appointed on the basis of unblemished judicial reputation. But alas, the US Supreme Court which is charged with handling constitutional matters is tainted by politics so much that fairness and impartiality cannot seriously be expected in all matters.

The reason is that it is a stacked body.

You see, if a vacancy comes up due to death or retirement during the incumbency of a Republican Administration they will always appoint a "conservative" judge. If the vacancy comes up during a Democrats incumbency they will normally appoint a "progressive". Since the Supreme Court even has the power to rule certain policy initiatives by the Executive "unconstitutional": this has a bearing on the powers of the White House to govern as rulings of this sort can screw up a program of government (that is by the ELECTED wing of government).

So stacked one way or the other with a majority of "conservative " or "progressive" judges their Supreme Court seems to act something like a hatchet squad appointed to scupper the policies of a subsequent administration not of the party as the ones that appointed the majority Supreme Court in-house faction.

During the four years that Trump was incumbent he had the good fortune that no less than three judges on the S C bench passed away and Trump gleefully appointed conservative replacements to give this faction an unassailable majority - thereby as much as planting a time bomb to explode in the face of any subsequent Democrats presidency. The new ruling that expunged that of the earlier precedent established by the same court (the tort) is a flow-on from that. It also goes against good judicial practice as enacted in all countries whose system of laws are based upon English Common Law - and that includes the USA. (Milo will likely confirm this as true.)
............................................................................................................................................

You are unduly optimistic if you believe that freely and fairly elected government always reflects "the will of the people" Cass. Indeed, I consider this will of the people doctrine to be in practice nothing other than a myth and a fantasy. But having had my say on the US Supreme Court above I do not want to delve into the complexities of democratic government now. Cheers!

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed May 11, 2022 7:56 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
Your point about their Supreme Court overruling long established practice (recalling that America's relatively permissive abortion laws were made possible by a civil suit in that same court half a century ago - it was not due to a political ruling by elected officials) - is valid. But there is a twist to the tale that needs considering.

All nations have a highest court in the land. The UK has its Privy Council; we in Australia have our High Court in Canberra for instance. From either of these institutions you can anticipate a fair and impartial ruling. The panel of judges are appointed on the basis of unblemished judicial reputation. But alas, the US Supreme Court which is charged with handling constitutional matters is tainted by politics so much that fairness and impartiality cannot seriously be expected in all matters.

The reason is that it is a stacked body.
in Australia, the PM de facto appoints judges to the High Court, right? That doesn't seem all that different. That proces may not be as politicised there than as in the US, but that would seem to be a cultural difference, not a structural one.

Although it helps that Australia has a mandatory retirement age to maintain turnover. The US doesn't have that, and at one point the Supreme Court comprised the same nine individuals for over a decade.
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
You see, if a vacancy comes up due to death or retirement during the incumbency of a Republican Administration they will always appoint a "conservative" judge. If the vacancy comes up during a Democrats incumbency they will normally appoint a "progressive". Since the Supreme Court even has the power to rule certain policy initiatives by the Executive "unconstitutional": this has a bearing on the powers of the White House to govern as rulings of this sort can screw up a program of government (that is by the ELECTED wing of government).

So stacked one way or the other with a majority of "conservative " or "progressive" judges their Supreme Court seems to act something like a hatchet squad appointed to scupper the policies of a subsequent administration not of the party as the ones that appointed the majority Supreme Court in-house faction.
The Supreme Court is a constitutional court, among other things, and yes, if a relevant case is before them they can determine that legislation or executive orders are unconstitutional. That's on purpose, as it's meant to be a check on the power of both Congress and the president.
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
During the four years that Trump was incumbent he had the good fortune that no less than three judges on the S C bench passed away and Trump gleefully appointed conservative replacements to give this faction an unassailable majority - thereby as much as planting a time bomb to explode in the face of any subsequent Democrats presidency. The new ruling that expunged that of the earlier precedent established by the same court (the tort) is a flow-on from that. It also goes against good judicial practice as enacted in all countries whose system of laws are based upon English Common Law - and that includes the USA. (Milo will likely confirm this as true.)
Not quite. During the last year of the Obama administration Antonin Scalia, one of the conservative Justices, died unexpectedly. Because the constitution requires the US Senate to consent to any judicial appointment, the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, simply refused to entertain any appointment until after the election and new administration began nearly a year later. He was willing to gum up the works just to see whether the next administration would be a Republican, and it was: Trump.

That's the politicisation you should be pointing out. It was unprecedented, and remains highly controversial.
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
You are unduly optimistic if you believe that freely and fairly elected government always reflects "the will of the people" Cass. Indeed, I consider this will of the people doctrine to be in practice nothing other than a myth and a fantasy. But having had my say on the US Supreme Court above I do not want to delve into the complexities of democratic government now. Cheers!
Indeed, even when democratic processes serendipitously reflect majority opinion, that's still not the same thing as preserving the rights of individuals. And so it goes....
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6777
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by Doc » Wed May 11, 2022 8:04 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 3:57 pm
And from that, you derived "it is even OK for a baby to be born and then denied care after birth so it dies. IE 'post birth abortion'"?

Denied care? An infant that cannot survive outside the womb that is receiving care to be kept from suffering in the meantime?
No infant can survive outside the womb at birth on its own. Therefore this could be applied to any baby. (IE still room for the envelope to be expanded.)

Notham said
"The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
This was not the norm just five years ago. Like I said the envelope keeps getting expanded. Sooner or later it was bound to blow up in the faces of those expanding it.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed May 11, 2022 8:19 am

Doc wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 8:04 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 3:57 pm
And from that, you derived "it is even OK for a baby to be born and then denied care after birth so it dies. IE 'post birth abortion'"?

Denied care? An infant that cannot survive outside the womb that is receiving care to be kept from suffering in the meantime?
No infant can survive outside the womb at birth on its own. Therefore this could be applied to any baby. (IE still room for the envelope to be expanded.)
I actually don't think you're wrong to be concerned about the shift of the Overton window on this. But it doesn't help make that case to pretend you can't tell the difference between "this baby will soon die and there's nothing we can do to stop it" and "this baby is healthy, but you don't want it so we'll smother it with a pillow".
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6777
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by Doc » Wed May 11, 2022 1:59 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 8:19 am
Doc wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 8:04 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 3:57 pm
And from that, you derived "it is even OK for a baby to be born and then denied care after birth so it dies. IE 'post birth abortion'"?

Denied care? An infant that cannot survive outside the womb that is receiving care to be kept from suffering in the meantime?
No infant can survive outside the womb at birth on its own. Therefore this could be applied to any baby. (IE still room for the envelope to be expanded.)
I actually don't think you're wrong to be concerned about the shift of the Overton window on this. But it doesn't help make that case to pretend you can't tell the difference between "this baby will soon die and there's nothing we can do to stop it" and "this baby is healthy, but you don't want it so we'll smother it with a pillow".
My point here is that the goal posts are being moved. When Northam made the statement, he said one thing. Today someone else would say something one step beyond that. At this point it is right up to smother the baby with a pillow. There is a line there If it has not crossed already it will be. Once crossed the pro-abortion argument will be lost. And the Message will be received as "The Democrats war on babies and children"
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply