I was simply amazed at why women would not care about being thought of as murderers (even if that were to be false) when they could easily nip the problem in the bud by taking pills/asking their partners to use condoms/etc.? — Agent Smith

Did you not read what I said? Contraceptives fail. Rape happens.

The availability of cheap contraceptives implies that abortion isn't necessary for responsible women of child-bearing age. If I don't want an omelette, I shouldn't break an egg. To break an egg, make an omelette and then throw it away is being mean, not only to the egg, but to yourself as well.

The availability of cheap contraceptives implies that abortion isn't necessary for responsible women of child-bearing age. If I don't want an omelette, I shouldn't break an egg. To break an egg, make an omelette and then throw it away is being mean, not only to the egg, but to yourself as well. — Agent Smith

Contraceptives fail. Rape happens.

Contraceptives fail. Rape happens. — Michael

Contraceptive failure rates are negligible and most pregnancies that are aborted are not due to this reason. It shows (some) women have no respect for life.

As for rape pregnancies, what are the stats on that? I'm fairly certain that only a handful of abortion requests are for rape pregnancies.

In other words, your rebuttals fall short of their mark.

Contraceptive failure rates are negligible and most pregnancies that are aborted are not due to this reason. It shows (some) women have no respect for life.

As for rape pregnancies, what are the stats on that? I'm fairly certain that only a handful of abortion requests are for rape pregnancies. — Agent Smith

Who cares about the rate? They happen, and so abortions should be allowed to account for them.

As for rape pregnancies, what are the stats on that? I'm fairly certain that only a handful of abortion requests are for rape pregnancies. — Agent Smith

Many rape victims are scared to admit it, so the amount of abortionion requests for rape pregnancies will likely be diminished in contrast to the actual quantity of rape victims that would request abortion if shame were not a factor.

Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to only allow abortions when rape is involved, and this is because people may falsely accuse others of rape in order to get an abortion. I realize this is a more pragmatic argument. Does this mean rape needs to be asserted, proved in court, etc?

Furthermore, I don’t know if many pro-life people would agree either; it doesn’t matter if the person is raped or not, abortion is still killing.

The availability of cheap contraceptives implies that abortion isn't necessary for responsible women of child-bearing age. If I don't want an omelette, I shouldn't break an egg. To break an egg, make an omelette and then throw it away is being mean, not only to the egg, but to yourself as well. — Agent Smith

Perhaps a more realistic option of this idea is all men should have vasectomies unless planning to have children. The reality is people don't always plan their activities.

Many rape victims are scared to admit it, so the amount of abortionion requests for rape pregnancies will likely be diminished in contrast to the actual quantity of rape victims that would request abortion if shame were not a factor. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm sorry to hear that. Nevertheless, it appears that some women are piggybacking on rape victims, shooting from their shoulders as it were, to make a case for universal abortion rights. Only rape pregnancies should be aborted if the victim wants to. Normally people against whom no crime has been committed can't avail the services of the criminal justice system, oui?

Perhaps a more realistic option of this idea is all men should have vasectomies unless planning to have children. The reality is people don't always plan their activities. — Tom Storm

Good call! I prefer chemical means (noninvasive) over surgical ones (invasive). The late Alan Turing was chemically castrated for his homosexuality. He probably hadta report to a designated clinic for regular injections of some kind.

Why should it be women only who shoulder the responsibility? Men need to step up to the plate.

Come to think of it, quite odd that not much research has been done on male contraception.

Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to only allow abortions when rape is involved, and this is because people may falsely accuse others of rape in order to get an abortion. I realize this is a more pragmatic argument. Does this mean rape needs to be asserted, proved in court, etc? — Paulm12

I didn't mean to suggest that abortions should only be allowed for rape. Because we can't wait for a rape to be proved in court and because we can't police the use of contraceptives, abortions should be available for everyone.

The recent SCOTUS trashing of stare decisis leaves it to rightwing state legistlatures to impose pro-fetus (anti-child! anti-mother!) criminal and civil laws prohibiting abortion (especially, most inhumanely, without exception due to rape, incest or health of the pregnant woman / girl). This oppositional, pro-Woman, secular goal stands repeating:

[A]bortion on demand – as an inalienable Human Right – even in the third trimester. — 180 Proof

Period. :brow:

Caren White opines:

DeSantis Is Changing Florida Schools’ Curricula Again (Jul 2, 2022)

Seems like Goldwater's prophecy is materializing?

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. — Barry Goldwater (Nov 1994)

Why should it be women only who shoulder the responsibility? Men need to step up to the plate. — Agent Smith

I think the vasectomy option came up earlier in the thread.
Legislate female bodies, legislate male bodies, seems fair.
Watch pro-life males complain (whine) loudly. ;)

Along the lines of ...

Yeah, it takes two to Tango. Why should only one party take all the flak, the shit?

We must assume that the fetus has a soul and that abortion is nothing less than murder. Err on the side of caution, oui monsieur? I dunno what came over Descartes who records show conducted vivisection on dogs! :scream: :groan: Clearly, he, despite his reputation, wasn't a (true) skeptic.

This is ahistorical piffle actually. The golden rule is younger than the US constitution and constitutions, and statutory laws for that matter, were much more a continental thing at the time - so if you want to go into what they intended then it's not anticipating on idiotic restrictions on interpretations. Montesquieu and Locke were important influences. Maybe read the "spirit of laws" of the former.

The golden rule is a bastardisation of interpretative techniques available to people with half a brain. It's just wilful stupidity.

Addendum to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/714160

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide. — Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address, 1838

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_Lyceum_address

The golden rule is a bastardisation of interpretative techniques available to people with half a brain. It's just wilful stupidity. — Benkei

Alright, so if in 1972, we were to sit 100 US lawyers in a room and asked them to read the Texas abortion law and then to read the text of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, how many do you believe would announce the state has no compelling interest in regulating an abortion within the first trimester? Pretty small number don't you think?

Would you think that those who didn't find that right to be idiots without half a brain?

When we deal with statutory interpretation, it's usually of limited consequence and it doesn't result in protests in the street. We just send the law back to the legislature to get it right if it doesn't comport with the will of the people. The courts are just doing their best to interpret the law, but they're not placing themselves in a position above the legislature and the people and telling them what must be the case. Since typically the remedy is straightforward and democratic, you don't get into all this philosophical debate. Turning a statute on its head to get a desired result is really just the game lawyers play, with really little thought spent on these ideological questions.

But here we're not really asking how we should interpret words, but we're asking a bigger question regarding the role of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court. If you see the role of the Court as the final check on the general reasonableness of the legislature and you see the Constitution as akin to the Bible, where it says only good things even when it says bad things, then it follows that the Constitution says abortion is acceptable, gay marriage is permitted, and all sorts of other things I generally agree with. The Justices on the Court are therefore well within their right to tell us that the 14th Amendment speaks about abortion just like the rabbis are well within their right to tell us that the Bible condemns stoning.

Maybe then the argument should be redirected against those with half a brain who think the role of the Court ought to be limited, but then there are plenty of countries (the Netherlands for instance) who would never afford their courts the power to strike down democratically passed law even if their constitutions specifically forbade the conduct.

I harbor no illusions that the Court is entirely apolitical without an agenda, but I do think it follows that if a Court views its role as very limited in the US democratic structure, it will arrive at interpretational schemes that will act to limit its power.

Alright, so if in 1972, we were to sit 100 US lawyers in a room and asked them to read the Texas abortion law and then to read the text of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, how many do you believe would announce the state has no compelling interest in regulating an abortion within the first trimester? Pretty small number don't you think?

Would you think that those who didn't find that right to be idiots without half a brain? — Hanover

Yes. They're idiots. The only reason this isn't obvious to you is because after 200 years of "golden rule" you don't know any better. It's unfortunate and is a source for injustice. Glad I don't live there.

Yes. They're idiots. The only reason this isn't obvious to you is because after 200 years of "golden rule" you don't know any better. It's unfortunate and is a source for injustice. Glad I don't live there. — Benkei

The trimester framework was so obviously present in the 14th Amendment, yet I was just too blind to see it. It's just surprising to learn the drafters were thinking about abortion at the close of the Civil War prior to even women having the right to vote.

I wish you'd reconsider your not wanting to move here. We can use your positivity.

Legislate female bodies, legislate male bodies, seems fair.
Watch pro-life males complain (whine) loudly. ;) — jorndoe

Yeah, it takes two to Tango. Why should only one party take all the flak, the shit? — Agent Smith

The problem is that abortion and vasectomy are elective procedures. There is no legal means of forcing a vasectomy, just like there is no legal means of forcing abortion. All that can be done is to preserve the legal status . I hear there was a drastic increase in vasectomies immediately following the new law.

We must assume that the fetus has a soul and that abortion is nothing less than murder. — Agent Smith

In US, when a pregnant woman is murdered the defendant is usually charged with two counts. Seems like this is an implicit admission of the sovereignty of fetal life on the part of the state.

In US, when a pregnant woman is murdered the defendant is usually charged with two counts. Seems like this is an implicit admission of the sovereignty of fetal life on the part of the state. — Merkwurdichliebe

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

So American law is internally inconsistent!

All I can say is that given how a host of inexpensive contraceptives (for men & women) are available off-the-counter and in reproductive clinics, becoming pregnant with a child neither the man nor the woman involved wants is being irresponsible and callous, doubly so since abortion the inevitable aftermath is murder in the eyes of some folks. Would you, for instance, visit an Amazonian tribe and do something that could be (mis)construed as a heinous crime in that community?

It's always fun talking to you when you pretend to be dense. Here's a good article for starters:

https://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2006-the-a-contrario-argument-a-scorekeeping-model-2/

So long as we're having fun. That's what its all about.

Reading your article, I now know that if I'm trying to figure out if the statement "Citizens have the right to form associations freely" means that citizens and only citizens have the right to form associations freely and that non-citizens do not, or if it means that citizens have that right and we don't know what non-citizens have, we will need some sort of statutory interpretation system to clarify that. Got it. We need a system to clarify ambiguous statements.

Now I have to figure out why I read that article and how it applies to what I'm talking about.

The 14th Amendment, in relevant part under the Roe analysis states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

We know must find an ambiguity that needs clarifying. Perhaps we're not sure what "liberty" means, but that's more a problem with vagueness, not ambiguity, but let's pretend that distinction doesn't exist so that we can continue this analysis under the article your provided.

Alright, I'm now going to try to use that article to better understand what "liberty" might mean and whether it extends to abortion. In doing so, I must ignore the fact that it probably has something to do with the mass emancipation that just occurred under the 13th Amendment and has nothing to do abortion, but leaving that aside as an idiotic effort at divining drafter intent, we must dig a bit deeper.

Upon digging deeper, we realize that 14th Amendment states, as it pertains to abortion:

First trimester: No restrictions can be placed on abortion
Second trimester: Abortions can be restricted only if narrowly tailored to protect the mother's health.
Third trimester: Abortions can be completely prohibited except to protect the health of the mother.

I now learn upon analysis that the Amendment was impregnated with all sorts of hidden meaning.

What to do though with the phrase "nor shall any State deprive any person of life"? Why does that avoid the same tortured interpretation?

Is abortion a privilege?

What to do though with the phrase "nor shall any State deprive any person of life"? Why does that avoid the same tortured interpretation? — Hanover

It doesn't. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state what counts as a person at all and that's precisely why a judge needs to look beyond just what is explicitly stated.

So perhaps a case can be made that a foetus is a person and so State-supported abortion is unconstitutional.

It doesn't. In fact, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state what counts as a person at all. And that's precisely why a judge needs to look beyond just what is explicitly stated.

So perhaps a case can be made that a foetus is a person and so State-supported abortion is unconstitutional. — Michael

The Constitution doesn't have a definition section for any of its terms, but it would seem if I were trying to determine whether abortion were permissible, with one side arguing that the fetus is a person and the other that it is not, I'd focus on that part of the 14th Amendment that refers to people and life as opposed to the part that refers to liberty. It stands to reason that if the fetus is a person, it cannot be deprived of liberty either. That just seems where the question obviously lies.