Jump to content

US-Roe vs Wade overturned


CharonY
 Share

Recommended Posts

The dissent seems to echo that. From the NYT editorial board:

Quote

The dissent, signed jointly by the three justices appointed by Democrats, took apart the majority’s attempts to justify its rejection of established precedent and even questioned the Republican-appointed justices’ claims to neutrality. The right to abortion, the dissenters noted, was established by one ruling a half century ago, reaffirmed by another 30 years ago, and “no recent developments, in either law or fact, have eroded or cast doubt on those precedents. Nothing, in short, has changed.”

[...]

The three dissenters in the Dobbs case — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — called out the majority’s dishonesty, noting that its exceedingly narrow definition of “deeply rooted” rights poses a threat to far more than reproductive freedom. The majority’s denial of this is impossible to believe, the dissenters wrote, saying: “Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure.”

In other words, the court is not going to stop at abortion. If you think that’s hyperbole, consider Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs, in which he called for the court to reconsider other constitutional rights that Americans have enjoyed, in some cases, for decades — including the right to use birth control, the right to marry the person of their choosing and the right of consenting adults to do as they please in the privacy of their bedrooms without being arrested and charged with crimes. These rights share a similar constitutional grounding to the now-former right to abortion, and Justice Thomas rejects that grounding, calling on the court to “eliminate it … at the earliest opportunity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You do realize this is a prediction, and not a report of events? (bold by me)

"We expect violence could occur for weeks following the release, particularly as DVEs may be mobilized to respond to changes in state laws and ballot measures on abortion stemming from the decision," the bulletin, dated June 24, said

 

The reports I have seen is violence perpetrated by the forced-birth people - a vehicle driven into protesters and a politician striking their opponent

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10951557/Truck-plows-crowd-pro-choice-protesters-Iowa-leaving-one-injured.html

https://people.com/politics/rhode-island-cop-drops-out-senate-race-after-opponent-attacked-abortion-rally/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm considering "them" - by which I suppose you mean the various moral positions. I'm just not discussing them in this venue, since it's meant to be about the legal decision, and my tolerance for thread deraliment doesn't stretch that far.  

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If you believe those "sides" to be equivalent, you are woefully underinformed.

Since you aren't discussing moral issues...of course it's not equivalent.

The score was 5-4.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Since you aren't discussing moral issues...of course it's not equivalent.

I'm not quite seeing the consideration of various moral positions regarding infanticide as necessary to weighing the activities of political factions as regards protest.

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The score was 5-4.

What was the sport?

Goalpost shifting world series?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Even without laws preventing it, which healthcare provider would actually do that?

None of course. Health providers are all honest, have only the best of intentions, morals, and ethics beyond reproach, and need no laws in place to limit anything they deem correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

None of course. Health providers are all honest, have only the best of intentions, morals, and ethics beyond reproach, and need no laws in place to limit anything they deem correct.

Not to mention that they suffer professional consequences and may not be able to practice if they go against medical recommendations and regulations. Why is then a need to criminalize procedures by folks who are neither medical professionals nor otherwise involved in the process?

Or are you suggesting that lawmakers should determine medical necessity and procedure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good points made in this discussion. Here is my $.02; near as I can tell there is no scientific reason for claiming an embryo is more "alive" than the sperm and egg were a short time before the egg first divided, or that a fetus is more "alive" than an embryo, or a newborn more than the fetus a few hours or days before. The problem is a line (if one is to be drawn anywhere) has to demarcate when one becomes a "person" worthy of curtailing another person's (the mother) right and freedom to pursue happiness etc. Since that seems to be more of an ethical/moral question than a scientific one the debate gets pushed (wrongly IMO) to viability. What happens when scientists figure out (and they get nearer and nearer all the time) how to make a human being from just a sperm or egg? Will females then be required to attempt pregnancy every time they ovulate? Will it be a capital offense for a male to ejaculate anywhere other than a fertile womb? The whole point being, there ought to be other considerations than "viability" in who gets to decide the issue. That's where personal choice for the mother comes in and when should the state curtail their options. IMO, the state has no compelling interest in stopping abortions at any stage regardless to how abhorrent you, I or anyone else finds them.

Also, I find the Catholic Church to be one of the most hypocritical entities in this whole debate. For most of the history of the church one was not even considered to be alive until you were baptized. This was such a strong belief that many historical figures have unknown birthdays, only baptismal dates, presumably days or weeks after being born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Will females then be required to attempt pregnancy every time they ovulate? Will it be a capital offense for a male to ejaculate anywhere other than a fertile womb?

Or say, we develop the ability to connect an external womb to a man. Would a father be obligated to incubate the child if e.g. the mother dies or is otherwise unable to bring to term? I.e. can the the needs of one (potential) individual override the needs of another person?

Interestingly, Canada has a rather rigid definition of human being. Essentially the Canadian criminal code states that a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Interestingly, Canada has a rather rigid definition of human being. Essentially the Canadian criminal code states that a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother. 

 

Sounds like a birthday to me. I hear some people celebrate those, for some reason. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technology is not at issue.

Quote

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a well-established technology
with a variety of applications in basic and applied sciences.
The technology supports the production of embryos used
for research investigations, for treating human infertility, for
enhancing the productivity of food animals, and for
conservation of endangered mammals. https://web.archive.org/web/20200305134243id_/https://rep.bioscientifica.com/downloadpdf/journals/rep/124/2/181.pdf

Conception routinely takes place without a biological womb. Gestation is not far behind in achievement. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112

It's not a scientific issue. It's not a religious issue, since devout Catholics wouldn't abort anyway, and the ones who would are lost to the church already. Certain aspects of reproduction are social issues , like, just how many more people can the planet support?) and  how will a collapsed health-care system cope with all the preemies? The moral aspects go far beyond the conception/gestation/termination/live birth question. 

The issue before was legal  and has been dealt-with in considered legal deliberations.

The present situation is political - and that's a jurisdiction impenetrable to reasoned argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Not to mention that they suffer professional consequences and may not be able to practice if they go against medical recommendations and regulations.

Right. Thus the requirement for restrictions on their options.

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 Why is then a need to criminalize procedures by folks who are neither medical professionals nor otherwise involved in the process?

Because being a medical professional does not automatically raise you above everyone else morally or ethically. Last I checked, they were human too. 

Should we leave it with Engineers what guns should be developed and made available?

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 

Or are you suggesting that lawmakers should determine medical necessity and procedure?

They are the ones required to put the limits in place, and outline the basis for what might be considered necessary and with that the procedures that may be allowed. (With them of course limited by any constitution and the Judiciary)

Why would you suggest otherwise?

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for that matter, to any sense at at all.

On one hand:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rep-miller-thanks-trump-victory-white-life-campaign-says-misread-remar-rcna35359

and on the other

https://ttps://crowsneststpete.com/2019/02/18/whites-will-soon-be-outnumbered-but-theres-a-twist/

 

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Or are you suggesting that lawmakers should determine medical necessity and procedure?

Haven't you already got HMO's doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine how difficult the abortion debate is for Kangaroos. 

Their fetus comes out, crawles up the mother's fur to the pouch, and carrys on with it's virtual "gestation" inside till it's big enough to leave of it's own accord. 

The definition of fetus must be really difficult in the marsupial world. 

As far as I'm concerned, a human fetus is alive as soon as the egg is fertilised. It's alive, but I have no problem with it being killed and removed at that stage, nor when it's developing after several weeks. 

But somewhere between fertilisation and 40 weeks is a time, after which I would ban aborting a healthy fetus. I don't buy the "it's my body" argument. Or the "it's got a soul" argument. It is what it is, a human fetus, on the way to full term. 

I don't think people shoud be free to abuse their own bodies anyway. If someone tries to cut their own body parts off, I think we should step in. If they try to jump off a bridge, we stop them if we can. The "freedom" argument has it's limits.

I don't believe in inherent rights, it's really just people voicing their instincts, and their life-honed pre-dispostioned. 

What I would like to see is far more effort being put into preventing unwanted pregnancies, through better education and free provision of contraception methods to all. To be anti-abortion and anti sex education and contraception is just stupid beyond belief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the thread comes down to the debate in American courts over something called substantive due process.

To make sense of Roe v Wade, or Casey v PP, one must grasp substantive due process and unenumerated rights.  And the implications of 5th, 9th and 14th amendments,  as courts have put certain fundamental rights beyond government interference, i.e. beyond legislative tampering or regulatory orders.  Some rights must not be at the mercy of whichever partisan hacks can shout the loudest.  Or change at state lines.  The point of SDP is to protect people in states against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of government authority.  That's why legal people (like my former coworkers in that county courthouse many decades ago) speak of fundamental rights -- they are liberties which cannot be taken away by a pack of gerrymandered political hacks, or restricted because some tv personality on Fox News or Newsmax got the audience all riled up.  

 

Edited by TheVat
Editing would be the usual reason, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Because being a medical professional does not automatically raise you above everyone else morally or ethically. Last I checked, they were human too. 

And that is why there are medical associations which provide guidelines and regulation. It is not that criminal law is not in place (e.g. you cannot freely trade with organs). But determining what is medically beneficial for the patient can and should only be provided by health professionals. In your example it would be the equivalent of letting lawmakers rather than trained engineers where a bridge is safe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And that is why there are medical associations which provide guidelines and regulation. It is not that criminal law is not in place (e.g. you cannot freely trade with organs). But determining what is medically beneficial for the patient can and should only be provided by health professionals. In your example it would be the equivalent of letting lawmakers rather than trained engineers where a bridge is safe. 

Trained engineers don't get to build bridges wherever they like, and medical associations can't grant themselves the right to allow abortions in any circumstances they choose.

The rules should be left to lawmakers, scrutinized by the Judiciary, and the procedures executed by the medical or Engineering professionals based on their guidelines.

They can't just do what they like, even as a professional group, just because they think they know best.

Is this not obvious?

If you can recognize this for restrictions on trade of organs, how can you not see that the same principle would apply for abortions?

The federal lawmakers, with their all or none partisan positions, are the problem here, but just because they lack the competence to get the job done does not mean the medical associations get to determine the rules.

That falls to the State lawmakers.

Sucks that many of them will do no better, but that doesn't change the above.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trained engineers don't get to build bridges wherever they like, and medical associations can't grant themselves the right to allow abortions in any circumstances they choose.

And that is why your analogy is silly. The medical associations determine when abortions are medically indicated. You can make laws that contravene medical indications, but clearly it would be to the detriment of the patient. Likewise, you can make laws to build bridges where engineers tell you not to, but that would be stupid. Organ trade is a bit of a grey area and it is regulated as unfettered trade could be unsafe to patients. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

And that is why your analogy is silly. The medical associations determine when abortions are medically indicated. You can make laws that contravene medical indications, but clearly it would be to the detriment of the patient. Likewise, you can make laws to build bridges where engineers tell you not to, but that would be stupid. Organ trade is a bit of a grey area and it is regulated as unfettered trade could be unsafe to patients. 

Your objection is silly. 

Lawmakers, not medical personnel, get to choose the guidelines of whether the rights of a fetus take precedence over that of the mother, or vice versa.

If that was not the case, why would the Parties even attempt legislation on it?

 

Now, the federal lawmakers could make laws to allow to allow medical professionals to abort with impunity, or some reasonable compromise so that your whole nation has access to abortions the way the majority think they should.

But they haven't, and they haven't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Lawmakers, not medical personnel, get to choose the guidelines of whether the rights of a fetus take precedence over that of the mother, or vice versa.

If that was not the case, why would the Parties even attempt legislation on it?

That's the rub, isn't it? It basically means that in various countries, including the US, moral judgement is taking precedence over medical reality and recommendation. 

The fact that medically unnecessary late-abortions are often brought one, which simply do not exist (including in Canada, where there are not limitations on abortions) just demonstrates that this is really about moral assumptions and control that  are separate from reality (recreational abortions anyone?). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Lawmakers, not medical personnel, get to choose the guidelines of whether the rights of a fetus take precedence over that of the mother, or vice versa.

And lots of other things. Which may account for the 1,000,000+ Covid deaths in the country with the world's best medical expertise and highest medical cost.

The social cost of these decisions is enormous. The economic cost is huge. The personal costs will be incalculable. The cost in already frayed national unity is yet to be determined. But, hey, it's a big step toward unabashed fascism, so the political gain makes up for everything.

White women, rejoice! You are the designated incubators of a doomed master race.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.