Overturning Roe Vs Wade

[tango]

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).

Personally this is one I struggle with, given some of the many complexities of it. Whatever my personal views on the morality or ethics behind abortion the law has to be something that is objective and neutral, simply because I do not believe that government at any level has any business imposing legislation based on a morality that is necessarily subjective, unless there is a clearly identifiable imposition by one upon another (hence why I believe rape and murder should be illegal while prostitution and drug use should not)

Up to a point the embryo/fetus is entirely dependent upon the mother for its very survival. While it could easily be argued that the removal of the unborn from the womb is an act of violence against them it could also be argued that the mother is under no obligation to continue to support their life. A very imperfect analogy would be the person who stumbles upon another in the street who is bleeding to death - there is no legal obligation to offer any assistance at all. The analogy is imperfect because the act of removing the embryo/fetus is an active step against it rather than a passive step to decline to support it - it would be more akin to finding the victim bleeding, figuring they were unlikely to make it and putting a bullet in their head.

Once the fetus reaches a stage where it could survive outside the womb the case to allow abortion becomes weaker.

Issues like rape muddy the waters, as do situations where continuing a pregnancy would put the mother's life in immediate danger.

Even the problem relating to "good arguments on both sides" does little than defer the issue of when life begins to a matter of opinion. I remember reading some time ago (I can't remember where, or I'd link) something about the end of life and determing when life has ended. Using similar reasoning it seems safe to conclude that life begins before actual birth. It certainly makes no sense to say that this 18-week fetus is just a bunch of cells and not alive while that 18-week fetus is a living human.

 

[Lamb]

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

That's exactly as God planned it for mankind to reproduce. It's not a flaw.

 

[hedrick]

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

A fugitive woman act would be based on the previous sentence of the same act.

 

[Lees]

A fugitive woman act would be based on the previous sentence of the same act.

Big deal. What is your point?

My point is the fugitive slave law is based upon the Constitiution. Abortion is not.

If you want to say the woman wanting an abortion is a slave....that is quite a leap.

Slavery was protected by the Constitution. Abortion was not.

Lees

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's exactly as God planned it for mankind to reproduce. It's not a flaw.

Dependence is a feature. An infant once born may be given up to another's care because it is no longer wholly dependent on its mother. But an infant in the womb cannot be given up in a similar way. This is part of the debate between pro and anti-abortion persons. And this is where the bill of rights and the preamble to the USA constitution touch on individual autonomy. Shall a government make laws to demand that an individual woman carry a pregnancy full term and give birth? Or shall a government refrain from making such laws? Roe Vs Wade gave an answer that resulted in "a woman's right to abort". The SCOTUS draft decision is said to go the other way and allow state governments to legislate to demand that an individual woman carry a pregnancy full term and give birth. so each state government may make laws on this matter and those laws could go as far as to make any voluntary pregnancy termination a crime. Such a crime can even be treated as murder if a state government legislates to make it so.

 

[Lamb]

Dependence is a feature. An infant once born may be given up to another's care because it is no longer wholly dependent on its mother. But an infant in the womb cannot be given up in a similar way. This is part of the debate between pro and anti-abortion persons. And this is where the bill of rights and the preamble to the USA constitution touch on individual autonomy. Shall a government make laws to demand that an individual woman carry a pregnancy full term and give birth? Or shall a government refrain from making such laws? Roe Vs Wade gave an answer that resulted in "a woman's right to abort". The SCOTUS draft decision is said to go the other way and allow state governments to legislate to demand that an individual woman carry a pregnancy full term and give birth. so each state government may make laws on this matter and those laws could go as far as to make any voluntary pregnancy termination a crime. Such a crime can even be treated as murder if a state government legislates to make it so.

A baby is not a woman's body...it's living inside her body. So a woman's right doesn't take into consideration the baby's right and that's what's wrong with Roe Vs Wade. It's child sacrifice because the mother wants it dead.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's child sacrifice because the mother wants it dead.

Then as a consequence of the statement "It's child sacrifice because the mother wants it dead." one may think that abortion is murder and the state laws ought to treat it as murder, right?

 

[Lees]

@MoreCoffee

That's right.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

Then as a consequence of the statement "It's child sacrifice because the mother wants it dead." one may think that abortion is murder and the state laws ought to treat it as murder, right?

Should there be justice for crimes committed against the innocent?

 

[Josiah]

Carl DeMaio is a very popular Republican/Conservative radio talk show host in San Diego. He's "gay" and generally not conservative on social issues - but steadfastly so otherwise. He has an interesting "take" on abortion. Which he admits is an issue he's done a "180" on in recent times.

He notes that he has carefully studied HUNDREDS of surveys and polls over the past 20 years or so... and one thing is OBVIOUS, the great majority of Americans are not at the extremes .


+ Only 10-15% agree with the Democratic Party, that abortion is just another birth control method equal in every way to a condom... that what's inside a women is actually just the woman... that there is no baby, no human, no boy, no girl, no child - until the last cell of the last toe to exist the birth canal exits (and maybe not until days later)... that there is only ONE life form here - the woman. Maybe 10-15 % of Americans actually believe that - and yet they have baby showers, they have gender reveal parties, they believe if someone kills a pregnant woman, they should be convicted of TWO murders. These - in align with Democrats and about half of the US States, as well as ONE foreign country - North Korea - repents 10 to 15 percent of Americans.

+ Only 10-15% agree with some in the Republican Party. That all abortions are always wrong and must be illegal. No matter what.


HERE is where the majority of Americans are at: The Constitution never mentions this; there is no Constitutional right here. Abortion is not "just birth control equal to a condom" It is a very big thing and it ends a life. It should be rare. It should be regulated. It should not be "for any or no reason" (such as "I don't want a girl" or "I forgot to use a condom" or "he hates condoms" or "my state pays for abortions but not condoms") And there is SOME POINT where we are dealing with a human being, a human life - and a life that should be respected and protected. And this happens BEFORE the liberals insist - when the last cell of the last toe to exit... and maybe not then. The MOST COMMON view is that this happens when the heart starts to beat (interesting, the position of most nations of the world). When is this? It's not clear-cut. It ranges from 8-12 weeks or so, certainly before 15 weeks. There is a point where there is clearly LIFE - distinctive from the mother, HUMAN life. And more than half seems to put that before 15 weeks or so.


He shares that ACTUALLY, the position of the "Red States" and the Mississippi is EXACTLY what most Americans support. Americans align MUCH more with the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark etc than they do with North Korea. He noted that not one state is (at this point) arguing against ALL abortions, only regulating and limiting it. And this is exactly what the great majority of American support - a slight majority of Democrats, a significant majority of Republicans and virtually all Independents.


INTERESTING... this is exactly the position of every modern, civilized nation in the word today except the USA and North Korea. And it's exactly the position of the Mississippi law and the "red states" that are rejecting Roe v Wade




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A fugitive woman act would be based on the previous sentence of the same act.

Quite witty and very likely true.

 

[Faith]

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

Are you pro life?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are you pro life?

I am a Catholic so yes I am "anti-abortion" and I am not blind to the factors that make people seek abortions as well as the factors that can push even unwilling people towards it.

 

[Jazzy]

Regardless of whether you think abortion is moral or not. You do NOT want your government to be able to control what you do with your body. It's a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

Its not a new debate, it's the same reason Roe v Wade was established in the first place. Also this thread is not "is abortion moral or immoral " its discussing the potential repeal of Roe v Wade.

I've already said above that I'm not here to debate the morality of abortion. I'm anti authoritarian, if you want to prevent people from having abortions, you better find another way besides legislation. We have a bill of rights and a system of checks and balances for a reason.

 

[Lamb]

Regardless of whether you think abortion is moral or not. You do NOT want your government to be able to control what you do with your body. It's a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

Its not a new debate, it's the same reason Roe v Wade was established in the first place. Also this thread is not "is abortion moral or immoral " its discussing the potential repeal of Roe v Wade.

I've already said above that I'm not here to debate the morality of abortion. I'm anti authoritarian, if you want to prevent people from having abortions, you better find another way besides legislation. We have a bill of rights and a system of checks and balances for a reason.

I would prefer to call it helping the innocent who don't have a voice.

In an abortion a baby dies. That's what happens. People want to gloss over it because they want their excuses...well, to excuse the sin. But a death happens.

 

[Josiah]

Regardless of whether you think abortion is moral or not. You do NOT want your government to be able to control what you do with your body. It's a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

Everyone agrees with you.

But of course, a person's child is not their body. That child half of the time is a boy (and a boy can't be a girl). They are as distinctive at 8 weeks as they are at 8 years. Perhaps a woman can kill HERSELF (it's her body, her life) and some would argue that, but their child is not themself and not their own life. Obviously.

Also this thread is not "is abortion moral or immoral " its discussing the potential repeal of Roe v Wade.

Correct. The issue before the Court is NOT whether abortion is moral, NOT whether it should be legal. The issue is the Mississippi law which says nothing about morality and does not eliminate abortion. The immediate issue is this: Do the words of the Constitution indcate that someone may kill an unborn child? Does it say that? THAT'S the primary issue. But again, the law being challenged is very specific: the Mississippi Law. It oes one thing: regulate it (as is largely what law does : regulate human activity). It limits it to the first 15 weeks - a position MORE LIBERAL than nearly all European nations, nearly all the world's nations, most limit it before that. And this IS the most popular position for Americans - even those who call themselves "Pro-Choice." Americans do NOT agree that abortion is ONLY a birth-control method in every way the equal of a condom.... they think it's a very serious thing that should be rare and regulated. Americans do NOT agree that abortion should be welcomed for any or no reason - because the baby is the wrong gender, because the father doesn't like to use condoms, etc. The Mississippi law does NOT address the issue of reason (killing a baby girl because she's a girl is in the Mississippi law) - it only governs the WHEN... no more abortions done after the birth process has begun by cutting the throat as the head begins to exit. 15 weeks is the limit - in line or more liberal than nearly all nations of the world, well after the heart begins beating. The Mississippi law is more liberal than the norm for the world... still allows abortion of ANY reason (including preferred over condoms and the undesired gender), just not after 15 weeks when American believe we now are clearly talking about the life of a homo sapien.

if you want to prevent people from having abortions, you better find another way besides legislation.

I agree with that.

But you can say the same thing about rape or murder... simply passing a law doesn't prevent the behavior. BUT 1) it DOES tend to reduce the behavior (there's a reason I don't drive as fast down the freeway as I'd like) and 2) it expressed the morality and will of the people (most of whom don't approve of rape for example). I don't agree that we should just throw away all laws because are are those who choose to violate them.

We have a bill of rights and a system of checks and balances for a reason.

... and .that Constitution says nothing about killing children, this "right" the Court "found" in 1973 doesn't exist, which it admitted at the time.

Yes, where is the BALANCE you seek in our current abortion laws? Where is the BALANCE between parent and child? Where is the BALANCE in the value given to the mother and the baby? Why the extreme, unbalanced emphasis on an adult female (the mother) but not on an infant female? The current law has no balance AT ALL. None. It gives "choice" to the one least impacted by it.





.

 

[tango]

I would prefer to call it helping the innocent who don't have a voice.

In an abortion a baby dies. That's what happens. People want to gloss over it because they want their excuses...well, to excuse the sin. But a death happens.

I agree that we need to maintain a focus on the "baby dies" part of abortion. It needs to be something far more significant than just the final fallback if the condom splits and the pill fails.

That said there are all sorts of valid reasons why people seek an abortion over and above "I just don't want a child right now". It's pretty well known by most functioning adults how babies are made so perhaps if you're really that unready to have a child maybe it's best to avoid the baby-making activities. But when some of the thornier issues come up maybe "kill the baby" really is the best of a bunch of bad options, even when it is put as bluntly as that.

Perhaps one way of helping strike a balance is that if people are told exactly what's involved and that their unborn baby is going to be killed, so it's not presented as if it's just a bunch of cells that don't need to be there and that have no more significance than the bits on the end of your fingernails that you so regularly trim.

 

[Faith]

I agree that we need to maintain a focus on the "baby dies" part of abortion. It needs to be something far more significant than just the final fallback if the condom splits and the pill fails.

That said there are all sorts of valid reasons why people seek an abortion over and above "I just don't want a child right now". It's pretty well known by most functioning adults how babies are made so perhaps if you're really that unready to have a child maybe it's best to avoid the baby-making activities. But when some of the thornier issues come up maybe "kill the baby" really is the best of a bunch of bad options, even when it is put as bluntly as that.

Perhaps one way of helping strike a balance is that if people are told exactly what's involved and that their unborn baby is going to be killed, so it's not presented as if it's just a bunch of cells that don't need to be there and that have no more significance than the bits on the end of your fingernails that you so regularly trim.

Agreed

 

[Josiah]

I agree that we need to maintain a focus on the "baby dies" part of abortion. It needs to be something far more significant than just the final fallback if the condom splits and the pill fails.

That said there are all sorts of valid reasons why people seek an abortion over and above "I just don't want a child right now". It's pretty well known by most functioning adults how babies are made so perhaps if you're really that unready to have a child maybe it's best to avoid the baby-making activities. But when some of the thornier issues come up maybe "kill the baby" really is the best of a bunch of bad options, even when it is put as bluntly as that.

Perhaps one way of helping strike a balance is that if people are told exactly what's involved and that their unborn baby is going to be killed, so it's not presented as if it's just a bunch of cells that don't need to be there and that have no more significance than the bits on the end of your fingernails that you so regularly trim.

While I'm PERSONALLY of the moral view that abortion is wrong (except to save the life of the mother)... that's not the issue before the Court.


The Court is reviewing the Constitutionality of a very specific law - one established in Mississippi. That law does NOT say that abortion is wrong or to be eliminated. No state in the US has enacted anything making abortion forbidden. This is NOT a "abortion - yes or no" issue. The very specific law being reviewed doesn't address that.


The issue is: Is it constitutional for states to regulate abortion? Can it be regulated - as are nearly all medical procedures? Can a state do that? Or does the Constitution state that a state cannot do that, that there is a federal provision in the federal constitution that indicates that abortion cannot be regulated. As I understand it, Constitutional experts are pretty much united that the 1973 ruling was at least very weak and highly questionable... even some "pro-choice" folks believe the US Constitution is actually silent on this (at best) and this SHOULD have been addressed by Congress, not the Court.


See my post #30 above. Actually, it's the current position that is very radical (only North Korea has the same) and out-of-sync with most Americans. Most Americans believe that in a general sense, abortion should be allowed (fewer than half take my view) BUT it should be limited and regulated. They believe that AT SOME POINT we are clearly talking about a life - a HUMAN life, a baby. AND (and this is the critical, key point) such should have some protection. When is that? Americans give different answers, but the most common is when there's a heart beat. In any case, their reasons indicate some point! AND Americans think it should be rare and that's it's NOT just another valid form of birth control (in every way equal to a condom but preferred by men). No. This is a big deal.... this is major stuff (including emotionally).

Liberals will do EVERYTHING they can to spin this into an "anti-women" thing... "anti-birth control" ... "anti-women of color" issue. That it's about whether women have some right over their own body (that extends to their children). Its not. It's over a very balance, moderate REGULATION that most Americans embrace and that would place the US in the company of nearly all civilized nations rather than just North Korea. It's the "other" side with wild, crazy, EXTREME positions that Americans don't support, it's the Mississippi law that is moderate and balanced and generally supported.




.

 

[Josiah]

Reversing Roe v Wade will NOT make abortion illegal in the US. That is a Liberal LIE promoted by the press.


What it would do is state the OBVIOUS that many (including some "pro-choice" people) have admitted: The US Constitution says NOTHING about abortion - either way. The 1973 ruling arguing that it does was absurd. Anyone who can read knows that.

Overturning it removes the obvious, absurd lie. That's it, that's all.

It goes back to the States, right where it was prior to this silliness by a slightest of majority in 1973.

SOME states (such as The People's Republic of California) will align with North Korea and insist that abortion is just contraceptive, equal in every way to a condom... that there is no child... there is no life...there is no baby... there is no boy or girl... there's nothing at all until the last cell of the last toe to exit the birth canal (and if the mother WANTS the child) and even then, maybe not. Before then, it's actually the woman (and thus MUST be female, MUST have the same eye color, the identical DNA of the mother) but not even then, really it is just a lifeless, unidentifiable blog of nothing.

Some states (about half) will determine this is not contraceptive... this AT SOME POINT is terminating a LIFE, a LIFE different than the mother's life (half the time, not even the same gender). And at some point, we're talking life... a HUMAN life. And that suggests some regulation as with any medical procedure. They will align with Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, Switzerland, Russia, Ukraine, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Spain, Japan, and most other nations in declaring that after 10-15 weeks anyway, there is life, there is a child, a boy or a girl... and so we're talking taking a life, a human life, kinda of a big deal. It suggests some regulation, limitations, protections.

We'll be a nation divided on this (as in fact we have been for 70+ years): Roughly half the states standing with North Korea, about half with Europe. All permitting abortion - but some with no limitations, insisting this is just contraceptive with no life at all, some with limitations insisting it is not silly to call the child a "baby" or have baby showers or gender reveal parties.... insisting life is not defined by being wanted by one person but by DNA.




.