Roe vs. Wade and the Supreme Court

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It seems quite likely that Roe v. Wade will be reviewed by the current Conservative Supreme Court. There is an expectation, hope and prayer that it will be overturned.

Here are my thoughts on abortion:


I'm not a lawyer and no expert on Constitutional Law, but here's how I understand the situation:


1. Roe v. Wade made abortion a FEDERAL issue (in spite of the Constitution specifically and verbatim STATING that anything not mention as being a federal issue is therefore only a STATE issue; like many recent rulings, this one clearly and obviously violates the Constitution). So, overturning Roe v. Wade means that it goes back to the states (where the whole issue was before 1973). Some states will continue to have THE most liberal, radical, extreme abortion policies in the world (matched only by communist China and North Korea) - California, New York, Washington and several other states will side with North Korea here. Other states will permit abortion but in line with most western countries - permitting only in the first trimester and with various restrictions, probably most of our 50 states will do this. It's possible some states will forbid it entirely (except perhaps for rape and physical health reasons) although this is not certain.

2. Since government today has decided to obviously and undeniably violate the Constitution and rule in areas where it has ZERO authority, it seems likely that Congress will try to pass a FEDERAL law permitting abortion. This seems certain. This simply would replace the Supreme Court decision in 1973 with a federal law. Today, this might be a very radical, extreme law (again, to keep us in line with North Korea and Communist China - the only two countries with our current radical policy) BUT while that might pass in the House it seems less likely to pass the Senate... even today, it seems likely something less radical/extreme than Roe v Wade would need to be drafted to get through both houses. And of course, they will all be up for election soon (including Biden) and this radical policy is not popular with the public (especially in several states) they may be reluctant to permit abortion for all 9 months for any or no reason, often paid for by taxpayers. And it could be pro-lifers will purposely stall in hopes of a more conservative congress after the 2022 elections (when it is likely Republicans will again control the Senate). IMO, it seems likely SOME federal law will be eventually passed (again, making it a federal rather than state issue)... but what gets passed is almost certainly not going to be as radical as what we've had in the USA since 1973, perhaps more in line with Europe (just first trimester and with restrictions). Since the great majority of abortion are done toward the end of the First Trimester, this may not have a big impact on the number of abortions BUT it's a great philosophical/moral victory and we can work to slowly modify that federal law and get it more in line with human rights.


POINT: Overturning Roe v Wade is not going to end abortion in the USA... although it may reduce it and would be a moral/philosophical/human rights victory, and would make it an issue more in control of American voters rather than a few unelected judges.


- Josiah



.
 

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
Abortion should be freely available and backed medically.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
Ectopic pregnancies; malformed and non-viable foetuses ; late-term illnesses deadly to both foetus and mother.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You know my opinion already. I think considering a fetus fully human before it is capanle of thought is heretical, because it misrepresents the nature of the image of God.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I note that my objection doesn’t hold for some of the traditional,Catholic objection, though Catholics seem to be changing over to the new version. I think the traditional objection is wrong also, but not heretical.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You know my opinion already. I think considering a fetus fully human before it is capanle of thought is heretical, because it misrepresents the nature of the image of God.

A fetus can feel pain.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
A fetus can feel pain.
So can an animal. That's not a criterion for humanity. It's also not clear what meaning pain has when there's no conscious entity to feel it. It can certainly create instinctive reactions.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ectopic pregnancies; malformed and non-viable foetuses ; late-term illnesses deadly to both foetus and mother.
Then you should have written, "A FEW abortions should be freely available."


A fetus can feel pain.
So can an animal.
...and it's already illegal to torture an animal to death.

Of course, that doesn't apply to unborn human children, and lots of people don't see the hypocrisy, strangely enough.
 

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
Then you should have written, "A FEW abortions should be freely available."


...and it's already illegal to torture an animal to death.

Of course, that doesn't apply to unborn human children, and lots of people don't see the hypocrisy, strangely enough.
Foetuses cannot feel anything until the brain and the nervous system link at around 25 weeks.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Foetuses cannot feel anything until the brain and the nervous system link at around 25 weeks.


Babies can feel pain at 20 weeks. In the USA, they can be aborted at 40 weeks (although some states restrict that), no doctor visit or approval is needed, no reason is needed. It's not 20 weeks or 25 - it's illegal when the last cell on the last toe to exit the birth canal happens (even if the baby must be forced in place to prevent that and it is stranged to death). They can live when born as early as 23 weeks. But the ability to feel pain is not a good identification of humanity.... nor the ability to live unsupported.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned (the sole subject of this thread), it's POSSIBLE the USA will come into line with more humane nations like yours... Or at least not in the same camp as only two other nations: Communist China and North Korea. We'll see.






.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So can an animal. That's not a criterion for humanity. It's also not clear what meaning pain has when there's no conscious entity to feel it. It can certainly create instinctive reactions.

Good to know you at least agree that pain equals life.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Foetuses cannot feel anything until the brain and the nervous system link at around 25 weeks.

True or not, would this mean that you have no objection to banning elective abortions abortions at 25 weeks??
 

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
True or not, would this mean that you have no objection to banning elective abortions abortions at 25 weeks??
It is not for me to decide how a woman deals with her pregnancy.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
25 weeks is too soon. The prefrontal cortex isn’t operational until about 2 / 3 of the way. Until then it’s equivalent to pain for an unconscious person. Anesthesia doesnt remove the nerves that carry pain. it just makes it so the person doesn’t feel it.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is not for me to decide how a woman deals with her pregnancy.
Nice dodge. But we still have you on record as knowing that to kill an unborn child after the 25th week would be to torture, cause pain, to that victim of the procedure.

Therefore, there is NO justification for it, and yet when asked point-blank about doing so, the apologists supporting
abortion-for-convenience never own up to their own beliefs. Wouldn't that tend to suggest how immoral those stances really are that the proponents cannot bring themselves to say when asked, "Well sure. I'd still be in favor of torturing a baby, although I'd be against allowing the same people to torture their cats or dogs."
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
25 weeks is too soon. The prefrontal cortex isn’t operational until about 2 / 3 of the way. Until then it’s equivalent to pain for an unconscious person. Anesthesia doesnt remove the nerves that carry pain. it just makes it so the person doesn’t feel it.

Not sure if I'm missing something here. If the gestational period is 40 weeks and the prefrontal cortex is operational 2/3 of the way through doesn't that work out to more or less 25 weeks?

I'm not sure if I'm missing your point.
 

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
Nice dodge. But we still have you on record as knowing that to kill an unborn child after the 25th week would be to torture, cause pain, to that victim of the procedure.

Therefore, there is NO justification for it, and yet when asked point-blank about doing so, the apologists supporting
abortion-for-convenience never own up to their own beliefs. Wouldn't that tend to suggest how immoral those stances really are that the proponents cannot bring themselves to say when asked, "Well sure. I'd still be in favor of torturing a baby, although I'd be against allowing the same people to torture their cats or dogs."
We call your response "heiferdust." An abortion is up to the woman carrying the foetus, if she wants, it is not my decision.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
We call your response "heiferdust." An abortion is up to the woman carrying the foetus, if she wants, it is not my decision.
You aren't going to be able to backtrack at this stage of the discussion.
 

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
You aren't going to be able to backtrack at this stage of the discussion.
Not backtracking at all. I believe that abortion should remain available for woman when they need it.
 
Top Bottom