by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

WA Delegate: The 🇺🇦Rewilding🇺🇦 of Ruinenlust (elected )

Founder: Errinundera

Last WA Update:

Board Poll Activity History Admin Rank

Most World Assembly Endorsements: 11th Most Influential: 15th Most Nations: 53rd+29
Most Valuable International Artwork: 491st Best Weather: 492nd Most Beautiful Environments: 585th Most Eco-Friendly Governments: 695th Nicest Citizens: 788th Most Compassionate Citizens: 834th Most Inclusive: 858th Most Cultured: 941st Most Rebellious Youth: 1,133rd Largest Welfare Programs: 1,184th Healthiest Citizens: 1,289th Smartest Citizens: 1,319th Highest Food Quality: 1,337th Most Advanced Public Education: 1,352nd Most Extensive Public Healthcare: 1,370th Largest Black Market: 1,409th Most Advanced Public Transport: 1,474th Largest Governments: 1,665th Highest Foreign Aid Spending: 1,692nd Most Devout: 1,735th Largest Publishing Industry: 1,758th Most Popular Tourist Destinations: 1,813th Highest Poor Incomes: 1,822nd Largest Information Technology Sector: 1,975th Lowest Crime Rates: 2,024th Most Pacifist: 2,214th Most Secular: 2,282nd Most Subsidized Industry: 2,321st Highest Average Incomes: 2,718th
World Factbook Entry

🌲 Forest welcomes all nations, especially those concerned with the environment.


Links:

Constitution | LinkDiscord | LinkForum | History | Polls | Statistics | Ambassadors


Quote of the Fortnight

"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

~ John Muir


🗳️ WA Nations, please consider endorsing our delegate Ruinenlust. Every endorsement gives Forest greater voting power in the WA.


🤝 Applying for an embassy? Please read our embassy policy first.


🌏 Want a place on our Regional Map? See here for details.



  1. 8

    Forest Directory

    MetaReference by Mozworld . 266 reads.

  2. 26

    Forest Regional Map

    MetaReference by The Most Serene Republicans . 1,319 reads.

  3. 7

    Forest's Research, Statistics & History Grove

    MetaReference by Garbelia . 211 reads.

  4. 45

    Constitution of Forest

    MetaReference by Mount Seymour . 3,639 reads.

  5. 27

    Seventh Annual Forest Photo Contest 2021: The Winners!

    BulletinNews by Mount Seymour . 257 reads.

  6. 38

    Errinundera: A Tribute to the Founder of Forest

    MetaReference by Kawastyselir . 386 reads.

  7. 4

    The Shelves of Forest

    MetaReference by Garbelia . 119 reads.

  8. 12

    Want to be an Ambassador?

    MetaGameplay by Verdant Haven . 811 reads.

  9. 68

    Forest Regional History

    MetaReference by Mozworld . 2,498 reads.

▼ 6 More

Embassies: Philosophy 115, Eladen, Hippy Haven, Yggdrasil, International Democratic Union, Antarctica, Winterfell, Antarctic Oasis, Texas, Canada, Union of Free Nations, Singapore, The Region That Has No Big Banks, Democratic Socialist Assembly, the Rejected Realms, The Bar on the corner of every region, and 18 others.the South Pacific, Oatland, Haiku, Portugal, 10000 Islands, Spiritus, Conch Kingdom, The North Pacific, The Leftist Assembly, Europe, Sonindia, Wintreath, Refugia, The Union of Democratic States, New West Indies, Libertarian Socialist Confederation, Philosophers, and A Liberal Haven.

Tags: Casual, Commended, Democratic, Eco-Friendly, Egalitarian, Enormous, Featured, Founderless, Issues Player, Map, Multi-Species, Offsite Chat, and 4 others.Pacifist, Regional Government, Social, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Extremely High

Forest contains 369 nations, the 53rd most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Most Rebellious Youth in Forest

World Census observers counted the number of times their car stereo was stolen from outside fast food stores to determine which nations have relatively high levels of youth-related crime.

As a region, Forest is ranked 1,133rd in the world for Most Rebellious Youth.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The CUP-Eladeni Isocracy of Liberal LiberalsLeft-wing Utopia“Can't we all just get along? Eladen Rep”
2.The Lovebombs you came to expect of Lompe Steen HAHAInoffensive Centrist Democracy“stroaln hvelc Vreendscapr & hvoarhedrang hvelc Freadicr”
3.The Sylvan Hivə of TurbeauxCivil Rights Lovefest“Not only doəs God play dicə, thə dicə arə loadəd.”
4.The United Mangrove Archipelago of RansiumDemocratic Socialists“Semper Virens”
5.The 🇺🇦Rewilding🇺🇦 of RuinenlustCivil Rights Lovefest“The Party at the End of the World”
6.The Intensive Care Unit of Candlewhisper ArchiveAnarchy“AI See You”
7.The Collective of UiiopCivil Rights Lovefest“Amo, amas, amat Amamus, amatis, amant”
8.The Mirage Island of ValenverioInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Bask in the chaos and seek proof of your existence.”
9.The Republic of EffazioLeft-wing Utopia“Ad maius bonum”
10.The Proud LGBTQQIA Supporters of Frieden-und FreudenlandNew York Times Democracy“It's cool to be gay!”
1234. . .3637»

Regional Poll • Shall Forest adopt the "Amendment" Amendment for the Constitution?

The Bureaudirectic Union of Jutsa wrote:The amendment text in full: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1725730

Voting opened 2 days 5 hours ago and will close . Open to WA member residents. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.

Regional Happenings

More...

Forest Regional Message Board

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Possible controversial opinion:

Pro life is recognition of two axioms:

1) human life has intrinsic value, and you need a a damn good reason to end it.
2) human life begins at an earlier date than abortions are allowed.

I'm broadly of this opinion. I recognise that a woman's bodily autonomy is important and that there are sociological risks to infringing on that. However I also feel that a humans right not to have its life ended weighs heavily against the right of someone else to end it, even their own mother.

For me it's shades of grey. It's clearly wrong for a mum to kill her newborn baby, or her baby just before it is born. Equally I reject the common prolife view that humanity starts at conception.

For me there's no fixed start to human life -- it is emergent.

I am confident, however, that at 24 weeks we're talking straight up murder. Babies have survived from 21 weeks, and potentially could durvive far earlier. They have a rudimentary brain far earlier too.

My current judgement, subject to evidence based review, is before 8 weeks is definitely fine. 8 to 16 weeks, there should be strong reasons and counselling to mum to make her aware of the balance of life vs choicr. After 16 weeks, unless mum will die, the imperative not to murder means abortion is unethical.

I respect the right of others to make different judgements, and believe in the rule of law through a sound government should decide society's laws.

However, this is my personal ethical judgement.

Bodily Autonomy is the principle human right. Saying you can infringe upon it puts into question all other rights. Babies have bodily autonomy but cannot apply it as it requires active will. You can't assume a baby wants to survive. And even if it could talk it couldn't understand the question. Its also extremely unlikely though admittedly debatable that fetus' can even feel pain. Mothers however can feel pain and can even die without access to life saving abortion procedures and medicine.

Putting life above bodily autonomy and staying consistent logically would require you to completely alter your current world view as well. Are we to ban everything deemed scientifically unhealthy for us? Will we be mandated our 10 minutes of sun, or become a felon if we don't apply sunscreen? I'm not saying you're suggesting those ridiculous things but we have to follow life as the ultimate maxim to its logical conclusion.

You might say well bodily autonomy applies while conscious and life applies while unconscious. I would argue that is arbitrary and also not true. Once a child is born its completely owned by the parent. Children aren't allowed to do anything without parental consent. The only thing they can't do is kill them (violence and neglect is acceptable to a certain degree).

York Zionia wrote:You make some good points in your post, but I take issue with this statement, as well as your example with John's kidney transplant.

My question is, at what point does the right to bodily autonomy vest in a human? Conception? Birth? Age of Majority? Ever? Every law that has ever existed restricts what humans can do with their bodies (and therefore, body autonomy).

It doesn't matter when it vests because bodily autonomy can by definition only exist with will. You can't grant permission or deny access to your body while unable to communicate or contemplate it.

York Zionia wrote:Further, at what point does one's "body" matter end? Or to what point can you reasonably, legally lay claim to matter that is considered "your body" and therefore have legal, autonomous control? Just the extent of your person? That would be a narrower view than I'd take.

My view on the extent of "body" a person is entitled to full, legal autonomy over is any matter originating from the body containing DNA that hasn't been willfully or freely relinquished. So, saliva on a fork at a public restaurant? No longer your body, since you've freely given that saliva up in order to eat, and left the fork there willingly. What about plasma you've decided to donate to a relative that needs it for an operation? I'd argue that plasma belongs to you, even after it's been removed from your body until the point it's been used in the procedure for your relative--for its proper purpose. Therefore, the medical professionals transferring the plasma from you to your relative have to respect your autonomy over your body while performing the procedure, and cannot do anything with your plasma that hasn't been expressly authorized.

You don't get to decide what bodily autonomy is. Its a specific concept. Any perversion of the concept is simply something else. You can only agree or disagree on whether its a human right and whether its a primary right or you believe it should be ceded in X circumstances.

York Zionia wrote:Now, to illustrate my point, I'm going to use your example of the kidney transplant, because I believe your premise is flawed--that the state is forcing individuals to sustain life at the expense of their own bodily autonomy. This is because the state (at least in the US) has not forced anyone to perform *the required actions* that result in pregnancy. Therefore, using your kidney transplant example, the abortion debate looks more like this:

John is having kidney failure and needs a transplant. You volunteer to donate your kidney to John. Prior to the procedure to remove your kidney, your doctor advises you of the potential terminal and non-terminal risks associated with removing your kidney, so you are well aware of anything and everything that could possibly go wrong. He even provides you with a list of things you could do the week leading up to the procedure that could reduce the risks associated with kidney removal (eating certain foods, avoiding certain activities, etc.) so that you are at minimal risk during and after the procedure. You do all the things on the list and still agree to the procedure. A week later, the procedure is performed, your kidney is removed, John receives the transplant, and all is well.

But low and behold, a week after the procedure, you start to experience symptoms of one of the non-terminal diseases your doctor warned you about prior to the procedure--despite doing everything he recommended and knowing of all the risks associated with the procedure. The only way to remedy the condition is to get your kidney back.*

*(Not necessarily the case, because you could wait for another donor to come along, and you could live with some discomfort while taking medication, since its a non-terminal disease, but since we're intentionally limiting everyone's choices, as in most abortion scenarios, we'll do the same here... i.e. no chance for adoption).

However, luckily for you, there is a law that allows you to force the recipient of your donated organs to give them back up to 12 weeks after the procedure (or at any point in time after the procedure, depending on how pro-choice you really are), regardless of the effect to the done. So being a pro-choice, pro-body autonomy individual, you force that parasite John to undergo the required procedure to remove your kidney. You get your kidney back, you're no longer suffering the disease, and--unable to find another donor in time--John dies shortly thereafter.

The state hasn't forced pregnancy on anyone, its entered into freely by performing certain *acts* (at least the overwhelming majority of the time) with full knowledge of the risks and potential consequences, even with preventative measures in place. This is true for every living species on the planet. Technically every birth that's ever occurred is a "forced" birth since birth is the natural consequence of pregnancy. So one cannot force birth unless one forces pregnancy, and that just isn't the case for the vast majority of pregnancies.

This is a misunderstanding of the example. The example exists to show what could happen without bodily autonomy as a primary right. You may think the premise is flawed because it doesnít mirror the current result of the repeal of roe V. wade but when youíre discussing logical arguments at this level we havenít even gotten there yet. A person wants to do something with their Body and the state is physically preventing them from doing so. That is an unequivocally a violation of bodily autonomy.

Thus the first thing you need to decide is whether you A) Believe in Bodily Autonomy as a primary right or B) Believe that it can be ceded for X reasons. Maybe there is someone insane out there who believes no one has bodily autonomy at all. Let us hope no one here is like that though.

If you believe in Bodily Autonomy as a primary right from which all other rights are derived, then you canít possibly support the end to any abortions. You seem to believe it can be ceded, which then opens the question of when it applies and when it doesnít, and why it should apply differently logically. It would be difficult to untangle your belief that only fetusí can subvert their motherís bodily autonomy.

Iíll show you. Let us go back to the kidney example. Letís say now that John is the son of a mother. And John needs her kidney. Is it right to force her to give her kidney to john? John is still her child after all. I am sure you will come back with many disagreements.

Life before bodily autonomy Ė This has been gone over. Simply if life is more important than bodily autonomy, I could force you to do horrible things we all know are absurd that you definitely donít want to do to save lives.

Flawed Premise Ė You mentioned below that you believe forcing someone to give a kidney is not the same as preventing someone from getting an abortion. It isnít the same, but both require bodily autonomy. So what we are doing is logically reducing your position to its base parts. It doesnít matter that they arenít the same situation as someone else can use your logic to force Johnís mother to give him a kidney.

John isnít a fetusí Ė What is special about a fetus that makes it necessary to cede bodily autonomy? Is it because its defenseless and unconscious? What happens if John becomes critical and now is unconscious and defenseless. Does he gain access to his motherís body now?

York Zionia wrote:Now, going back to what I mentioned earlier--regarding the bounds of "bodily autonomy" and the example about the fork in the resturaunt--I brought that up because a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has already developed a completely unique and complex set of genetic material that is distinguishable from the mother carrying it. Who's to say that fetus/unborn child can't have autonomy over its DNA, effective against 3rd parties, the moment that DNA comes into existence?

Sure, the unborn cannot express an opinion, at the time, on what he/she wishes to do with their DNA (body)--but we already have (somewhat) arbitrary laws denying persons under the age of majority from entering into business contracts, or buying certain items, working under the presumption that those who do not seek to contract/buy do not wish to do so--and even if they did, would be denied from doing so if under a certain age. So how can any 3rd party make decisions interfering with the genetic material of a fetus, when that fetus hasn't freely given its express permission to do so?

You get into quite a predicament here because the baby also hasnít granted you permission to birth it or touch it or do anything with it.

Rhodevus wrote:I think it's easy to forget that the vast majority of sexual acts done, are not for the purpose of pro-creation and they have never been. We also live in a time where contraceptives are currently legal, and Plan B and other forms of birth control are available. We live in a society where hamburgers are marketed through sexual appeal, and it's not taboo to discus sexual activities in television shows. We are surrounded with the idea of sex for pleasure.

Now, what happens when people have sex? Either on purpose or accidently it is possible for one party to get pregnant. At which point, that person is blamed for not having the decency to know what they are getting into. Of course, by engaging in those acts, pregnancy isn't 'forced' on them. It was entered into freely. Unless you account for faulty (the pill is 91% effective, condoms are 82% effective, female condoms are 79%, diaphragms and caps are 71-88% and natural family planning [ie monitoring ones period cycle] is 76% effective) contraceptive measures, or the trusty 'pull out method' which some boys tend to prefer (I say boys, cuz real men use condoms).

But, this is all beside the point. Nobody is blaming people for having sex, right? It's not like we live in a society where men are cheered for having high body-counts.

But what of the kidney example? Well, John needs a kidney. Lucky for him, you decide to go to a shady party with your friends. Don't worry, the risk of coming home safe is between 75 and 91% (or, I guess you could say 1/4 to 1/10 chance of something happening, depending on what you do). Unfortunately, you are one of the unlucky few and you wake up strapped to a chair and told that you're being kept around for a bit so they can prep you for a kidney transplant. John needs a kidney, you see. But, it's alright. It's not like you really need the kidney anyways. And you're only going to be stuck there for a short amount of time. 9 tops. Only a small chance of long-term effects, we promise. If you didn't want to lose a kidney, you shouldn't have gone to that party, so who's really to blame? Not me, I'm just the doctor performing the transplant. Oh, you can't leave. Yes, I can see that you have a phone to call the cops to stop me, but you see, we live in a state where I, as the transplant doctor, can be in charge of you until you give the transplant. Don't worry, we promise that you will be extra safe.

Transplant done, I kick you to the curb.

No need to apologize--I get it. Likewise, I don't expect agreement (the opposite, actually), and I'm actually glad you took time to engage--so for that I thank you. But I am going to address some of these points regardless (cuz why not?):

(1) Actually the overwhelming majority of sexual acts are performed for the purpose of procreation (and always have been), they just aren't performed by humans.

(2) Just because sex happens to be pleasurable doesn't mean that the purpose of sex is pleasure. The purpose of sex always has been procreation. Sex happens to be pleasurable because we were meant to procreate.

(3) Regarding the kidney example - no reasonable person goes to a party with the expectation their kidney is going to be removed (that's kind of like believing toilet seat pregnancies are a thing). Similarly, no one boards a cruise ship with the expectation of going to Mars. However, people do board a cruise ship knowing that they will be completely surrounded by water (the purpose of a cruise), even if they don't want a drop of water hit them the entire trip. (Maybe they just want to enjoy the sun and sightseeing, idk). So even if you board a cruise, knowing that it's possible to avoid touching water the whole trip, you boarded that cruise knowing you'd be surrounded by water. Just because you don't want to touch water, doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect to remain dry the entire trip.

(4) Not as many people "cheer on" men having "high body counts" as you'd believe and society (and biology) provide deterrents, whether child-support, STDs, or otherwise.

(5) I'm not really sure how your train example is applicable here. If you're implying that that only the mother or child (but not both) are capable of surviving child birth (because we know that isn't true, for the overwhelming majority of all modern births) then that's just not a very good argument. If you want to address the circumstances in which a mother's life is endangered by her pregnancy, then that's a different discussion (in which we're far more likely to agree), but I'm not exactly sure how that applies here.

(6) Regarding DNA ownership - Not sure which case you're referencing here, but that's an overly broad interpretation on SCOTUS rulings regarding DNA/genetic material ownership. Generally, the law recognizes human ownership of DNA not freely or willfully discarded/relinquished (going back to my fork at the restaurant example). One does not have to knowingly discard DNA in order to do so freely. There's a difference there, and SCOTUS has recognized such.

(7) Labeling a fetus (or anything other than actual, literal parasites) as a "parasite" is an extremely dangerous game to play (it's was a particularly favored tactic of 20th-century dictators)--especially since you're referring to the literal future of the human race. Is anyone who relies on anyone else for their well-being/livelihood a parasite? That appears to be the standard.

And do we really, actually all know deep down that a fetus isn't a human? That absolutely isn't the case, and it's precisely why we're writing late-night essays on the RMB. So no, not going to concede that at all.

The Cypher Nine wrote: -response to my earlier post-

I'll address this later, perhaps in a telegram. I don't want to make a muck of the RMB, but I would like to delve into your argument a bit more--it's just late. Hope you don't mind if I push off my response.

Best,

-YZ

The thing is that the abortion question isn't a cosy after dinner debate between intelligent and educated people, with clever examples, trolley problems and premises P1, P2, and P3. It's about children being born into circumstances where nobody has the capacity to care for them so they grow up with few chances to do anything except repeat the same sh1tty cycle. It's about the end of dreams, careers and relationships. It's about psychological trauma, shame and bitter regret for the road not taken.

I think most people could agree that abortions are bad in the sense that it would be better if fewer of them happened. As has been said, this is best achieved through there being fewer unwanted pregnancies. The idea that the state can deal with undesirable consequences by simplistically banning them is beyond infuriating. How can you get better outcomes through the return of backstreet and DIY abortions, or by ensuring children are born unwanted into circumstances social services may later need to remove them from? By widening already yawning inequality by restricting abortion to those with the means to travel? I will never understand America, the land where owning an assault rifle requires less regulation than owning a uterus.

Banning stuff isn't taking a position in this philosophical debate, it's snuffing out the discussion. This is the process whereby, if armchair philosophicy is your thing, you decide what you'd do if it was you. Maybe later when the chips are down you even stick to it. A ban means that what you think doesn't matter.

My partner and I always felt we'd never go for an abortion and we declined the tests for fetal abnormalities on the grounds that we were going ahead either way. It wasn't a premise P1, P2, P3 kind of thing but it was a stance we felt had a certain dignity, a dignity it would have been stripped of by government compulsion. How crass it would be to presume to impose that choice on everyone.

My mother worked in a London gynaecological hospital before abortion was legalised in Britain. She always felt that after dealing with the aftermath of coathangers and bleach she had little appetite for philosophy.

So I've stayed out of the Abortion debate on here but I've seen a few points I'd like to address:

Disclaimers first! I consider myself pro-life with exceptions (rape and life of the mother). Those are my personal views. That said, if I were a politician I would probably campaign on the platform of not allowing abortion after the point of viability (somewhere around the 21st week). With all due respect, if you support killing a fetus near the end of a pregnancy, you are down right disgusting - in my view that's no difference than tossing a new born in a dumpster.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I am confident, however, that at 24 weeks we're talking straight up murder. Babies have survived from 21 weeks, and potentially could durvive far earlier. They have a rudimentary brain far earlier too.

My current judgement, subject to evidence based review, is before 8 weeks is definitely fine. 8 to 16 weeks, there should be strong reasons and counselling to mum to make her aware of the balance of life vs choicr. After 16 weeks, unless mum will die, the imperative not to murder means abortion is unethical.

So that brings me to the point Ruinenlust brought up in regards to the "exceptions"... I think a surprisingly large number of poeple are pro-life with exceptions, at least in my community anyway. The extremes on the issue drown those in the middle out. For me, it's not so much about the woman being worth less than the fetus or vice versa. It's more about the fact that a women doesn't choose to be raped thus the pregnancy is forced. Outside of rape, a woman is not forced to have sex. As York Zionia points out, that's a choice that comes with potential consequence of pregnancy. Actions have consequences... but but but what about the 1% that get pregnant while on birth control????? Well as York Zionia illustrated with cruise ship example, odds are it wont happen but it can happen and everyone knows that.

When the life of the mother is in danger it should be her choice... I can't imagine the pain in having to make the choice...

At the end of the day, I am a realist and agree with the following points:

Uan aa Boa wrote:The thing is that the abortion question isn't a cosy after dinner debate between intelligent and educated people, with clever examples, trolley problems and premises P1, P2, and P3. It's about children being born into circumstances where nobody has the capacity to care for them so they grow up with few chances to do anything except repeat the same sh1tty cycle...

I think most people could agree that abortions are bad in the sense that it would be better if fewer of them happened. As has been said, this is best achieved through there being fewer unwanted pregnancies. The idea that the state can deal with undesirable consequences by simplistically banning them is beyond infuriating. How can you get better outcomes through the return of backstreet and DIY abortions, or by ensuring children are born unwanted into circumstances social services may later need to remove them from?

Making abortion illegal won't stop them... thus the reason if I were a politician I would only call for a ban after the point of viability.
I generally stay out of the abortion debate as I feel morally conflicted from both ends being that I fall in the middle on this issue. Morally I think abortion is wrong. I also think it is immoral to take the anti-abortion stance yet do nothing to help those kids. I see it as a lose - lose situation until society itself makes major changes.

Lastly, I would like to comment on what sparked all the debate. The US Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. Rather they left the issue up to the states. Personally I wish this would be the case with more issues especially on the economic side of things. Smaller federal government is better. The people at the local and state level know better what they need and prefer than casting a blanket over the entire country.

I'll quick throw my bit in here, in part because I can personally relate to FV's stance on this, given it was my first and long-held standpoint until I learned more about this (and still mostly agree with), but also because some of the other points raised have definitely given me more to think about.

Forest Virginia wrote:With all due respect, if you support killing a fetus near the end of a pregnancy, you are down right disgusting - in my view that's no difference than tossing a new born in a dumpster.

This part has always been confusing to me. I certain as heck agree - for the most part, and would've agreed 100% a couple years ago with how little knowledge I have on the matter. That said, I've also been told by folks in the WA (sad source to get this from, I know), and particularly Sanctaria I believe, that really late-state abortions are not so much a guaranteed death as an early-induced birth. I still agree that's probably not right under most circumstances, but assuming the baby is not particularly likely to have major complications, and particularly if the mother's health is genuinely at stake, I could see it being a viable possibility; but realistically, it's one of those instances of "Gosh, I really don't know enough about this" and I myself haven't done enough research to even know what to think personally. Still, it seems a dad more nuanced then "baby killing ree!", though feel free to correct me otherwise. ;p

Forest Virginia wrote:Lastly, I would like to comment on what sparked all the debate. The US Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. Rather they left the issue up to the states. Personally I wish this would be the case with more issues especially on the economic side of things. Smaller federal government is better. The people at the local and state level know better what they need and prefer than casting a blanket over the entire country.

I'm glad they technically stepped away from some states' rights, although personally I wish they would've done that with other things instead. I can appreciate protecting civil rights over state rights, and I also believe the "fed" is often surprisingly lenient when it comes to enforcing things otherwise legalized (see: marijuana). But states are an important part of our checks and balances, and the amount of blatant ignorance of our 10th amendment in many circumstances is a little worrisome if I may be frank.

I'm still a little worried about states outright banning abortions (as Texas already practically did not long before the court overruling anyway), though. One could argue that if it was that important, an individual would find a way to either visit or outright move to another state to have an abortion there. It's definitely difficult - especially if you're dirt-poor, where this is maybe the biggest problem. Just missing a paycheck, much more finding a viable time and affordable way to another state, is imaginably quite difficult (as I see Uan's touched on). And yeah, it absolutely would have a negative effect on our already rampant inequality.

Last word of note: I'd argue that states already had significant freedom to regulate abortions to a certain degree, such as within periods of time or under certain circumstances (health, rape, etc.). I frankly don't quite get where allowing states to outright ban it remotely comes in handy.

Uan aa Boa wrote:It's about children being born into circumstances where nobody has the capacity to care for them so they grow up with few chances to do anything except repeat the same sh1tty cycle. It's about the end of dreams, careers and relationships. It's about psychological trauma, shame and bitter regret for the road not taken.

Bigger point here... yeah. Not to mention we're at around the world population limit and are swiftly running out of resources and are likely heading toward a period of significant die-off as-is anyway, but that as an aside, the suffering due to a lack of resources and people willing to actually care for them (arguably related) is enough of a reason. Although, I personally wouldn't use that as a reason for an abortion past a certain period; after all, those neglected are largely still with us for a reason. (I'm ready for a contentious debate about that.)

Uan aa Boa wrote:My mother worked in a London gynaecological hospital before abortion was legalised in Britain. She always felt that after dealing with the aftermath of coathangers and bleach she had little appetite for philosophy.

*Sigh...* Yeah, that's a really depressing issue - and one where I can sadly understand why it's done. One could theoretically argue that doing it legally would encourage more abortions, but I'd argue that it largely means getting them done faster (thus less tragically) and more safely. I'd still hope that, given the relative ease of going from one state to another in the US, it wouldn't be as big of an issue as it may've been in the UK, buuuut... yeah, that might just be the largest reason why I'm a bit nervous about it being banned anywhere.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Final note: While the Roe vs. Wade overruling allowed states to ban abortions, wasn't there also some... deeper implications? I've heard a little bit about it potentially having major implications about right to privacy in general, although I'm not too enlightened on the matter. Don't suppose anyone else could shed a little light on that for me?

Forest Virginia wrote:Outside of rape, a woman is not forced to have sex.

Neither is a man, and male choices have consequences too. Are many conservative states that now restrict abortion likely to enact measures that leave fathers responsible for those consequences? If not, it's going to continue to be seen as a fundamentally sexist position.

Forest Virginia wrote:Lastly, I would like to comment on what sparked all the debate. The US Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. Rather they left the issue up to the states. Personally I wish this would be the case with more issues especially on the economic side of things. Smaller federal government is better. The people at the local and state level know better what they need and prefer than casting a blanket over the entire country.

I absolutely get that, but let's not delude ourselves that these judges on the Supreme Court are motivated by bringing power closer to the people and are coincidentally starting that project with Roe vs Wade. Sure, in economic terms localism is good. Rights are supposed to be universal, and that's why they're properly the subject of federal government and international law.

Jutsa wrote:

Final note: While the Roe vs. Wade overruling allowed states to ban abortions, wasn't there also some... deeper implications? I've heard a little bit about it potentially having major implications about right to privacy in general, although I'm not too enlightened on the matter. Don't suppose anyone else could shed a little light on that for me?

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.

Ok, I don't talk much here but I guess I will weigh in right here. It's worth mentioning that my family is very conservative, and though I've moved on from a number of those positions (particularly the right-wing economic program), there are a few I remain sympathetic to. This is one I haven't really ever budged on. To some degree, I'm just curious with some of the distinctions in the more nuanced views here. I also don't always log onto this nation, so it's entirely possible by the time I get around to responding to any objections (and surely there will be many) I won't be able to, so I've tried to anticipate a few obvious ones. Regardless, you're obviously welcome to disagree even if I don't get around to responding.

So I'm curious what the considerations here are. Why do you think conception is too early? I think a good number of anti-abortion folks consider life to begin at conception mostly because it is a clear transformation, whereas no other strict demarcation is easily drawn, in addition to the point that even if a zygote is somewhere between "not human" and "human," it's clearly on the path towards developing into something fully human. That seems like it arguably ought to be of essentially equal consideration. In case someone thought to object about it, there is no natural progression of a sperm cell towards "full humanity" until it fertilizes an egg, so this argument does not make the claim that sperm cells are of equal value with humans.

This is, of course, mostly equivalent to Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous Violinist argument. What I'm struck by here is how this view to me seems both very cynical (most people won't save the man by sacrificing their kidney), and yet that is still esteems a freedom to do wrong against other people. I disagree with that strongly. To me, freedom is a good because it is ordered towards people choosing a good. I don't fundamentally believe in a "right to do wrong," at least when someone else is wronged, and moreover, I don't really think you can avoid that the government is normative. That doesn't mean all morality should be policed, but I think the default, arguably is that it ought to be in cases of life-and-death, and certainly if we don't think most humans are going to do the right thing and instead will let people die as a result! This is one reason why it strikes me as very libertarian (an ideology I used to hold but now strongly disagree with), in addition to the fact that it fundamentally dissolves obligations to family and community. When you bring someone into the world, I think you have an obligation to that person, at the very least, not to kill them. Or else, in the case of a cryptic pregnancy or a failed abortion where the woman ends up giving birth, would they not have obligations to their child, unwanted as the child may be? Finally, it ultimately seems to be Thrasymachian to me-- that it is somehow acceptable to let someone control another person simply because the power exists (in other words, justice is the advantage of the strong over the weak). I don't think the fact that it's her body really changes much. For whatever reason, we've evolved to bring forth new life through pregnancy. That's a natural stage of development for the human person, and to destroy the natural way that human survives is, to me, murder. The fact that the child is weak (not viable if you like, but even after viability relies on the woman to exist) if anything ought to make the law more careful.

Some of this may sound pretty strong, and I don't mean to disparage your character or imply you support most of the things here I associate the argument with. I have some serious misgivings with it, though.

Siornor wrote:Word. Word to your whole post but especially to this last line. And in America, of all places, I think being against "choice" is a vile sin.

Touched on this, but this is a red herring to me. When the question is about murder (as anti-abortion advocates will say that it is), you have to show either that it is not murder or where choice enters into it. No one supports choice to murder adults, no one supports the choice to steal and torture and rape, and I assume no one here supports the choice of corporate boards to pollute with impunity and ruin the environment to the detriment of all (especially the poor).

I would note that if you are concerned about the way sex is portrayed, social conservatives in general are not comfortable with casual sex in general, and most pro-lifers (certainly myself) support pretty robust supports for pregnant women and parents. It has been a major political disappointment that those opposed to abortion in the US have not supported such programs, but that doesn't ultimately change the morality of the issue. Anyway, I think there's something fundamentally different than doing something which biologically causes something else and being strapped up and forced to donate your kidney. I'm curious what you mean to say someone "controls their DNA," as I don't think anyone has much control over that (it's all a parental accident). But if you don't believe in objective morality, I think we're going to have a hard time communicating, unless you literally support the abolition of the state and all regulation.
I've tried to mostly avoid the sort of line-by-line debunking which can make arguments pretty tedious, but I vehemently disagree with all of this. In the first place, your first suggestion is that people in comas and people who don't speak the language don't have rights. In the second place, the point of a right to life is not that you are forced against your will to have it, but that other people can't kill you (by, say, abortion, if abortion is murder). This has very little in common with the idea that I, through my own free choice (making essentially an economic trade-off between a tiny degree of health and annoyance) not applying sunscreen which may slightly contribute to a greater risk of skin cancer which may but probably won't kill me. That's my own decision, and about something very trivial in comparison to someone else's ability to live the rest of their life at all. And it is, frankly, disgusting to hear the idea that parents "own" their children, and that violence and neglect is somehow "acceptable." That's absurd and morally repulsive. Parents have authority over their children because their children don't know better, not because bringing them into the world gives you the power to do whatever the hell you want with them. They're children, not slaves.

See, to me, far from this being a defense of discussion, this just presupposes the validity of abortion. We don't legalize murder because it sometimes still happens, or because it allows certain people who have (often at least partially valid) grievances to find emotional closure. It's important to support those who are emotionally hurt, but that isn't all there is to it. And the fact that people fail morally doesn't render their reasoned arguments any less valid.

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben develops this idea of a Homo sacer (accursed man or sacred man), which in Roman law was a person who was free to be killed by anyone but could not be sacrificed (as their name and life was worth nothing). Essentially, they were stripped from the protection of the law. (Also relevant is a distinction dating back to the Ancient Greeks between bios, political life, and zoe, animal life or "bare life." The homo sacer was stripped of bios and reduced to zoe.) Agamben believes, essentially, that Western societies are based on the systematic reduction of some group of people to bare life. Drawing from Foucault, he calls this "biopolitics"- political control of bare life. And between the annihilation of rights and duties to the unborn and the use of clinical terminology to refer to the "fetus," I have a very difficult time not seeing homo sacer in abortion.

To close, I don't mean to attack anyone personally, or offend anyone, but obviously I have as strong disagreements with most of you as most of you will have with me. It is an issue I feel pretty strongly about, and so you'll forgive me I hope for pressing for it rather strenuously.

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.

Mmhm, I'd note that "health" is a traditional police power, which is a state issue. You can make arguments about the necessary and proper clause or whether we should really let this stop us (I basically think the Constitution's enumeration of powers at this point is pretty obsolete regardless, and I dislike the Supreme Court, which has made besides Dobbs a number of terrible decisions recently), but I would note anyway that abortion is not healthcare in this case, because the question of whether to allow it or not is about a moral argument, not an argument about the practicality of it on the level of healthcare. And morals, again... are a police power, and thus the jurisdiction of the states (again, in theory that I don't care about too much, but let's not misstate).

Sorry about double posting, but there were more responses after my last :P

Edit: One more point, I also don't think "men don't have to deal with the consequences" is a valid argument, either. The fact that some group gets away with something doesn't make it acceptable for another group. That said, I actually agree with Uan aa Boa's post to the degree that absolutely I think a fully consistent pro-life position necessitates strong protections for pregnant women and new mothers and as far as possible ought to hold men responsible for the situations they put women in.

Some rather disturbing views posted above about people having sex. Such views usually come form virgin teens or frigid middle aged/elderly women. Trust me, sex is great. Everyone should do it all the time.

IMO, the woman's right to her own body is paramount and nobody can justifiably force her to use for a purpose she does not wish to use it for.

Forum View

Advertisement