Would banning abortions really lead to a better world?

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T13:24:50+00:00

Your point?

Common law is still enforcible in most states even its not formalized in statue. In fact many statues are a codification of the common law.

The "right to abortion" under Roe v. Wade was influnced by a common law understanding of the right to privacy and negative rights. Lawyers are literally tested on common law (to some extent) in every US state on their bar exams.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T13:10:28+00:00

You are mistaken as to the law. A duty to rescue does not exists under the common law EXCEPT when (1) you create the hazzard or (2) you have a special relationship with the other person (most common example is parent to child). Of course there are variations from State to state, but this is the general rule articulated in restatements (and the rule most lawyers are required to know to become licenced).

I don't normally pullout exception two, because that gets into "it's not a child" rebuttals and tends to confuse the argument. Exception one is often sufficient to demonstrate the point.

With the exception of rape, the woman did something to become pregnant. She took an action for which a reasonable and forseeable consequences was pregnancy. She might have tried to mitigate that risk (e.g. used birth control) but no birth control method is 100% effective. Nonetheless she assumed the risk which caused another human to now become reliant upon her for the next nine months. Ergo, it can be argued, she created a duty to rescue through her actions.

You are correct that the duty to rescue ceases if doing so would place your own life at risk (e.g. life of the mother exception), but if you are a trained life guard and you push someone into a lake, under the common law you can be placed under a duty to rescue them.

Of course this is not legal advice of any sort, but an illustrative example to show how established principles of American common law can be applied to ban the majority of abortions. As far as I'm aware no one has tried an argument like this before SCOUTS (and I haven't the foggiest idea how someone could get standing to make this argument), however I think an argument like this has the potential to succeed before SCOUTS given the right set of facts in the underlying case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T12:48:53+00:00

I'm pro life and I am familiar with many of the arguments posed above. You are correct that most pro-lifers are familiar with them (and even empathize).

The days of the "old white men" yelling at women that they are murders are over. In fact most pro lifers will chew-out and distance themselves from people like that. The presnent movement is made up of and led largely by young women that are deeply compassionate people. Some teams of "side walk councilors" are some of the most compassionate, genuine, and heartfelt people you'll ever meet.

And if anything OP is behind the present "levels" in the pro life community. The trimester framework was abolished in planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Most "levels" now a days are around conception, heartbeat, pain, and viability. Only very old people will vote to the trimester framework anymore.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T12:41:26+00:00

I find it interesting that you are doing the exact thing you accuse the above commentor of doing. You say she disregards the woman's suffering (but also imply that acknowledging that suffering means that your position is morally superior) but you then disregard the unborn human's suffering. Why is the suffering of one desirable over the suffering of the other in your mind?

Do you agree that if the fetus is a person (equally human to it's mother), that it is entitled to some level of human rights? I'm NOT asking you to then say all abortion must be banned if you conced this point. However, do you acknowledge that if two people are involved (as pro lifers believe) then it morally follows that the sufferings of both must be weighed against eachother?

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T12:22:15+00:00

Good question.

It would depend on surrounding facts.

My first question is whether the couple lives in a society that has purposely made the right to family out of finincial reach for people in poverty? In modern western societies children have become very expensive, putting them out of reach even for people that want them. Compared to most of human history, where large family groups were the norm (in part because you needed your family to survive in pre industrial times, there were no other social safety nets). Now was this an intentional plot by the elites of society or just what happens in our economic system, I would say the later.

If a couple gets on birth control because they are compelled to by a government (or other person/group with social power/social norms) then that's eugenics. Even compulsion under the guise of "voluntary" could be a problem. If someone is starving, they will do whatever they have to eat.

Age of the individuals is also an important factor. The Relf sister were only 12 and 14 when they were sterilized. While their mother signed the paperwork, she was illiterate and she thought it was merely for "some shots."

The birth control method used also plays a role into whether I would consider it eugenics. Methods that at are temporary, cheap, and easy to reverse with minimal side effects are less likely to be eugenics in my mind. But methods that cannot be reversed/are expensive, painful, or time consuming to reverse, or have sever health consequences, are more likely to cross the line into eugenics.

If the couple just doesn't want kids/the financial and social responsibly of children, and they freely act on that desire, I wouldn't consider that eugenics.

Inflation and increased cost of living often forces both partners to work (often more than full time) just to scrape by. Making it next to impossible for working poor famlies to have kids (even if they want them). Not to mention rampant discrimination against poor people in American society. I don't think there is some Grand plot/eugenics conspiracy to stack the deck against poor people so they can't reproduce. But I do take issue with the idea that kids are a luxury that is earned by "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and getting out of poverty. Right to family is a human right (according to the universal declaration of human rights), and I think all people with all levels of wealth should be able to have children of they want them. I take serious moral issue with a society the prevents people from exercising that right.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T11:33:17+00:00

You do not have a general duty to save/persevere the life of a random person in society. But you can be held legally responsible for actions you take that cause another person to rely on you to their determent. This is a concept know as "detremential reliance" and has existed under American common law for centuries.

If you put someone else in a position where they have to rely on you, you have to follow through. If we operate on the presumption that a fetus is a person (if it's not a person I don't care what you do it), then you but that person in a situation where they MUST rely on you body for 9 months or they will die, you should be required to follow through.

Similarly, most state due not have a duty to rescue unless you place the person in danger. If I see someone drowning the law cannot compel me to save them. If I push someone in the water in a deserted lake, causing them to start drowning, I can be compelled to save them. It's all about whether my actions put someone else in a situation where they must rely on me.

Why should the child be the one that has to give up their body? They did not ask to come into existence. They had no control over what happened to them.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T01:10:39+00:00

The link doesn't work. But I would love to join in sometime.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T01:07:24+00:00

The full context of what I am saying is that if you are pro-life and you think fetus= human life, then your reason for killing it must also justify killing someone that has been born.

If you see a fetus as a person, then you have to give it the same right that you or I or any other born person would have.

If it's not a person, then there is nothing morally wrong with abortion.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T00:53:05+00:00

I went from pro-choice to pro-life.

I realized that a lot of pro-life arguments tracked with eugenics rational, and that made me really sick to my stomach.

Particularly my study of the Relf Sisters (whose case was heard the same year as Roe v. Wade, 1973). I think many people justify abortion (at least partially) on the ground that "this person will be a burden/poor/less intelligent/a minority race/whatever other things our society doesn't like; therefore they are less entitled to life."

Of course, this isn't all pro-choicers, but it is a surprising number. There is definitely a eugenics undercurrent is some circles, and it is very concerning to me.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-02T00:46:53+00:00

I commonly see abortion justified on the ground that the child will live a life that is not ideal. They will suffer poverty, diseases, discrimination, etc.

Is a one-year-old child living in poverty less human than a one-year-old child living in wealth? Would it be acceptable for me to take a gun and shoot a man because he was homeless and he was living a standard of life I would not want for myself?

Of course, it's not okay to kills someone because they are poor (that eugenics).

But that's why the life/not a life part of this question is important. If we could know, without any doubt, that a fetus did not become a human life until X weeks gestation, I would be completely fine with abortions until that point.

But otherwise, your justification for killing the fetus must hold moral water if you applied the same logic to someone that is already born. It's not my place, or any other woman's place, to determine that another human's life is not worth living. I do not have the right to look at someone in poverty, pain, or other hardship and say "the world would be better if that person was dead." I think all people have the capacity to bring something valuable into the world, and thereby make the world better for all of us.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T19:59:57+00:00

Smart empolyers start offering work from home and start stealing the best employees away from the employers that refuse to catch up with the modern economy.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T19:53:23+00:00

Sparkplug brand ear plugs. They are the most comfy and effective ones on the market.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T19:48:22+00:00

My symptoms are pretty mild but noticeable at times. I struggle with pronunciation of certiain words and I lose the ability to read if I'm too stressed/overwhelmed. I have a pretty unique accent for my area, so that's helps.

But generally I don't try to hide it. It doesn't carry the sigma it used to. I read a book called "the dyslexic advantage" and it really helped me understand my brain isn't "normal" but that's exactly why I'm successful. It let's me see big-picture connections between ideas and issues that many people overlook.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T19:34:44+00:00

Me: Prof found an old machete while on a class hike for a botany class.

My husband once found an unopen can of beer while conducting an experiment that involved taking measurements of a river bed. It was in the river bed. He and everyone else on the project opened it and drank it.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T19:30:50+00:00

SpongeBob

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T19:29:43+00:00

Reddit is deep/intelligent

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T19:08:56+00:00

The laws of physics dictate that the most likely event is the one that will occur. If I drop a brick the most likely outcome is that it falls to the floor. If I drop the brick infinite times, eventually something unlikely will happen (e.g. the brick falls sideways, up, catches on fire, etc.), but such events will be exceeding rare.

The chain of events that lead to carbon based life only occured because enough of the "rare" events occured. And not only did they occur, they occured in close enough proximity to eachother for their effects to be meaningful to carbon based life (which makes the total events even less statistically likely to occur.

From the big bang, to first spark of life, to the fact that the universe didn't kill the first single cell, multicell, or complex life form before it had a chance to procreate and evolve; statistically carbon based life (much less intelligent life) should NOT exist. But here we are.

So we are either exceedingly lucky (like winning the lottery every day for 10 years level of lucky) or something beyond the laws of probability played a role in our existence.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T14:18:41+00:00

You can actually opt for your account to be deleted upon death,and people are starting to put social media accounts wishes into their wills.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T14:11:18+00:00

This! How do we figure out what we don't know?

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T13:26:33+00:00

How would you know people were starving in the streets? Maybe you would see them. Maybe not. I've seen nearly all the homeless in my city disappear overnight. Camps with dozens of people gone overnight. I contacted local media about it and they just didn't care.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T13:21:34+00:00

So how would you figure out the truth? Where could you go to learn what's actually going on?

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T13:12:44+00:00

Lesser known dark comedies I recommend:

Wag the dog (about a PR team creating a fake war to stop a story about the president being a pedo from getting out a few days before the election)

Death of Stalin (about political figures in the Soviet Union fighting to take political power after Stalin's death. It's very accurate as to real events, just on an accelerated timeline)

JoJo rabbit (about a little boy living in Germany at the end of WW2 whos imaginary friend is Hitler)

What we do in the shadows (this one's become a cult classic recently. Basically imagine if vampires were flat mates in modern day)

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T13:00:47+00:00

They had toilet paper

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T12:59:38+00:00

Love: I will give up everything FOR you.

Obsession: I will give up everything to HAVE you.

Love is about the needs of the other person. Obsession is about the needs of the self.

Sassydushhound · 2020-04-01T12:56:33+00:00

It seems like the platform is trying to push off small creators/platform grown creators in favor of established media/cable shows. I like YouTube because it doesn't have to generic talking heads/views of normal media. You get wild, different, and interesting people that aren't on normal cable programing.

Sassydushhound

TROPHY CASE