Overturning Roe Vs Wade

[Jazzy]

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court overturning Roe Vs Wade?

 

[Lamb]

It doesn't end abortion and leaves it back in the hands of the states where it belongs. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on things in the Constitution and abortion is not mentioned there, so they had no right to make a ruling in the first place.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court overturning Roe Vs Wade?

The ruling touches on matters of the Law and the USA constitution as well as jurisprudence that I do not fully understand. Yet I am confident that there will be vigils and protests and many shall be for the ruling because they believe it will save infant lives and many shall be against the ruling because they believe that many will suffer and some will die because of it. I wonder what a theology of life and human dignity will say about it after the matter is fully examined. God preserve peace and grant that we all obtain the spirit of the culture of life without lording it over those who differ.

 

[hedrick]

The decision is dangerous. Rose v Wade rests on the concept that the givernment is not supposed to regulate our private lives, This principle is not limited to abortion, but has been used in other decisions. The new opinion seems yo be unwilling to protect abortion because it is not explicitly protected In the constitution. As you may know, one concern about creating the Bill of Rights initially was that people would come think they were the only rights. Once the US removes this protection, don't be surprised if you don’t like the results.

If we’re lucky, this decision will be repudiated by a future court, just as some of the pre Civil War decisions have been.

 

[hedrick]

Remember, we're not going back to before Rowe v Wade. Red states are much more aggressive now. There are laws trying to stop people from going to another state fpr an abortion. Is that constitutional? No, but there's no reason to think the Supreme Court will decide that way. Do you recall the pre Civil War period, with the Fugitive Slave Act? What happens when NJ refuses to extradite a woman to Texas?

Also, because most abortions can now be done with pills, every miscarriage becomes suspicious. All it takes is a suspicious nurse, and you could be arrested. Would you go to the hospital for a miscarriage under those circumstances?

Things are going to get very ugly.

Of course Republicans are now proposing a national law. Don't believe statements that this decision returns things to the states, where it belongs. If abortion opponents can get it outlawed nationally, they will. Anyone for an Underground Railroad to Canada? A national law will have to be enforce by the FBI. Does the FBI want to become the miscarriage police? Do we want them to?

We're not dealing with reasonable people here. Anti-abortion folks have God on their side, and no reason to compromise. No matter what the consequences for the rest of us.

 

[Lamb]

@hedrick you have your accusations all wrong...Republicans aren't trying to make a national law. Could you site your bill for that?

Roe Vs Wade should not have been something that the Court should have ruled on since it's not even in the Constitution. That's the gist of all this. By reversing Roe Vs Wade, they're actually correcting a mistake that was made in the 70s and telling people that abortion should be something that people vote on in their states. That's the American way...to vote on things.

 

[hedrick]

@hedrick you have your accusations all wrong...Republicans aren't trying to make a national law. Could you site your bill for that?

Roe Vs Wade should not have been something that the Court should have ruled on since it's not even in the Constitution. That's the gist of all this. By reversing Roe Vs Wade, they're actually correcting a mistake that was made in the 70s and telling people that abortion should be something that people vote on in their states. That's the American way...to vote on things.

on a national ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

"A group of Republican senators has discussed at multiple meetings the possibility of banning abortion at around six weeks, said Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who was in attendance and said he would support the legislation. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) will introduce the legislation in the Senate, according to an antiabortion advocate with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy. Ernst did not respond to a request for comment."

On there being no explicit constituional protection, that's the argument the Founding Fathers were afraid of.

 

[tango]

Of course the whole discussion ultimately has to boil down to the simple question of whether that thing in the womb is a living human or a clump of cells that are little more than an extension of the mother.

If it's a human then it's hard to see how abortion can be considered anything other than the killing of another human. If it's just a clump of cells then it's hard to see how abortion is any more significant than having any other surgery.

At present we seem to have a bizarre mix of laws that effectively leave what should be an objective reality to the preferences of one parent. If the mother wants it there then it's a human (e.g. laws relating to the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide), and if she doesn't want it there then it's a clump of inert cells. We might call it Schrodingers Fetus.

It's not directly relevant to Roe but it's sad that in the whole mix of rights and who has what rights, the father gets no say in anything. If he doesn't want it but mum does he gets to pick up the tab. If he wants it but mum doesn't he gets nothing.

 

[hedrick]

Of course the whole discussion ultimately has to boil down to the simple question of whether that thing in the womb is a living human or a clump of cells that are little more than an extension of the mother.

If it's a human then it's hard to see how abortion can be considered anything other than the killing of another human. If it's just a clump of cells then it's hard to see how abortion is any more significant than having any other surgery.

At present we seem to have a bizarre mix of laws that effectively leave what should be an objective reality to the preferences of one parent. If the mother wants it there then it's a human (e.g. laws relating to the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide), and if she doesn't want it there then it's a clump of inert cells. We might call it Schrodingers Fetus.

It's not directly relevant to Roe but it's sad that in the whole mix of rights and who has what rights, the father gets no say in anything. If he doesn't want it but mum does he gets to pick up the tab. If he wants it but mum doesn't he gets nothing.

Yup. And that was part of the argument for Rowe v Wade. The court observed that there are good arguments on both sides, and no agreement among Americans. Courts had no business enforcing one view because they happened to agree. We've now got a court intentionally chosen to have a specific view (even though two of them apparently lied to Susan Collins about it).

 

[Lamb]

on a national ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

"A group of Republican senators has discussed at multiple meetings the possibility of banning abortion at around six weeks, said Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who was in attendance and said he would support the legislation. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) will introduce the legislation in the Senate, according to an antiabortion advocate with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy. Ernst did not respond to a request for comment."

On there being no explicit constituional protection, that's the argument the Founding Fathers were afraid of.

There is no current bill. It was some discussions amongst some Republicans. That's pretty much what your article said.

 

[Lamb]

Of course the whole discussion ultimately has to boil down to the simple question of whether that thing in the womb is a living human or a clump of cells that are little more than an extension of the mother.

If it's a human then it's hard to see how abortion can be considered anything other than the killing of another human. If it's just a clump of cells then it's hard to see how abortion is any more significant than having any other surgery.

At present we seem to have a bizarre mix of laws that effectively leave what should be an objective reality to the preferences of one parent. If the mother wants it there then it's a human (e.g. laws relating to the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide), and if she doesn't want it there then it's a clump of inert cells. We might call it Schrodingers Fetus.

It's not directly relevant to Roe but it's sad that in the whole mix of rights and who has what rights, the father gets no say in anything. If he doesn't want it but mum does he gets to pick up the tab. If he wants it but mum doesn't he gets nothing.

What's horrifying are the people who don't see that a baby actually dies in abortion. People are fighting in the streets with their protests in favor of killing children.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Roe Vs Wade should not have been something that the Court should have ruled on since it's not even in the Constitution.

Isn't the preamble of the USA constitution concerned with individual liberty and isn't the bill of rights part of the USA constitution? Is it not true that among the rights discussed in the bill of rights is individual liberty from encroachment on one's body and physical well being by legal shinanigans concocted by local, state, or federal governments?

 

[Lamb]

Isn't the preamble of the USA constitution concerned with individual liberty and isn't the bill of rights part of the USA constitution? Is it not true that among the rights discussed in the bill of rights is individual liberty from encroachment on one's body and physical well being by legal shinanigans concocted by local, state, or federal governments?

Abortion should be determined by the States. That type of precedent should be voted on by the people, not determined by the Supreme Court since the Constitution does not even discussion abortion.

A woman who says My Body doesn't realize that the baby has a separate and distinct DNA according to science.

 

[Lamb]

on a national ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

"A group of Republican senators has discussed at multiple meetings the possibility of banning abortion at around six weeks, said Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who was in attendance and said he would support the legislation. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) will introduce the legislation in the Senate, according to an antiabortion advocate with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy. Ernst did not respond to a request for comment."

On there being no explicit constituional protection, that's the argument the Founding Fathers were afraid of.

I did more searching and it's surprising there is NOTHING on any of the Republican news sites about this....but the Washington Post article seems to have exploded on other sites. It's like a disease among liberal news sources when they catch wind of something and just pass it on because it's big drama.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Abortion should be determined by the States.

Catholics believe and teach a principle of subsidiarity which would probably be incompatible with your stated view that states ought to legislate about abortion. States have legislated about murder and killing of all kinds. If one wants then let those laws apply to abortion. Is that what one wants?

One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. (click here for the source of this quote)

 

[Lamb]

Catholics believe and teach a principle of subsidiarity which would probably be incompatible with your stated view that states ought to legislate about abortion. States have legislated about murder and killing of all kinds. If one wants then let those laws apply to abortion. Is that what one wants?

I'm not Catholic.

I would love a nation that bans the killing of all children.

 

[Josiah]

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court overturning Roe Vs Wade?

Some thoughts....


1. It's always been absurd for the Court to argue that the Constitution protects abortion. There's NOTHING THERE that remotely so suggests. Some insist that the Constitution's protection of privacy does this, but NOWHERE does the Constitution even mention the word "privacy" and what does that have to do with abortion? Absolutely nothing. Obviously. The Court clearly erred in removing the authority of the States and the legislature... it WAY overstepped its own authority...


2. If Roe v Wade is overturned, it likely will mean that about half the states will have roughly the same abortion laws as in Europe - the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, etc. And about half the states will align perfectly with North Korea. We'll have half that embrace that at some point, we're dealing with a homo sapien (the position of nearly every modern, civilized nation on Earth) and half that insist that until the last cell of the toe exiting the birth canal, there is no human, no girl, no boy, no baby - baby showers are silly, gender reveal parties are stupid, health care for the non-existent "it" is absurd because what is there is not human, not even real. Liberal states, like my People's Republic of California will insist to stand with only one country (North Korea) on this in this very, very radical extreme position that I think every reasonable person finds absurd, CLEARLY this unborn child is not a non-entity or a cockroach or simply the female - she's a BABY, a baby human. But half of the states will insist that's just not true. So, we'll be divided on this, roughly half the states on each side - half with civilized countries, half with North Korea. We'll be divided - as we were before Roe v Wade. Divided as we were for a century before the Civil War - with some states insisting Blacks were humans, and half insisting they weren't but rather property of the owner.


3. The US Congress could pass a national law encoding the radical North Korea position. But now, that's just not possible, the liberals don't have enough votes. And they'll likely have even fewer after the mid-term elections. And many feel the Federal government should and will stay out of this, otherwise the Law will go back and forth, perhaps every two years, as Liberals or Conservatives take control of the Congress - and that would be a mess. Better to just let the states have the authority the Constitution clearly gives to them.




.

 

[Faith]

Abortion should be determined by the States. That type of precedent should be voted on by the people, not determined by the Supreme Court since the Constitution does not even discussion abortion.

A woman who says My Body doesn't realize that the baby has a separate and distinct DNA according to science.

Yeah that’s the thing. Pro choice people are saying that they should be able to do what they want with their bodies but the fetus isn’t the mother’s body, it’s a separate individual.

 

[MoreCoffee]

the fetus isn’t the mother’s body, it’s a separate individual.

A separate wholly dependent individual. Dependent on the mother for food, oxygen, warmth, and every aspect of its existence in the womb.

 

[Lees]

Remember, we're not going back to before Rowe v Wade. Red states are much more aggressive now. There are laws trying to stop people from going to another state fpr an abortion. Is that constitutional? No, but there's no reason to think the Supreme Court will decide that way. Do you recall the pre Civil War period, with the Fugitive Slave Act? What happens when NJ refuses to extradite a woman to Texas?

Also, because most abortions can now be done with pills, every miscarriage becomes suspicious. All it takes is a suspicious nurse, and you could be arrested. Would you go to the hospital for a miscarriage under those circumstances?

Things are going to get very ugly.

Of course Republicans are now proposing a national law. Don't believe statements that this decision returns things to the states, where it belongs. If abortion opponents can get it outlawed nationally, they will. Anyone for an Underground Railroad to Canada? A national law will have to be enforce by the FBI. Does the FBI want to become the miscarriage police? Do we want them to?

We're not dealing with reasonable people here. Anti-abortion folks have God on their side, and no reason to compromise. No matter what the consequences for the rest of us.

The difference between abortion and the 'fugitive slave act' is that the fugitive slave act is based upon the Constitution. (Article 4 Sec. 2)

Lees