Roe v. Wade/Abortion

[Jim]

Oh, hell, might as well get this out there since it is primarily what the confirmation hearing was about (and since I love to stir up controversy).

 

1. Will Roe be reversed?

2. Should Roe be reversed?

3. If Roe is reversed, should state legislatures restrict the woman's right to choose an abortion and/or right to take human life?

4. If so, what sort of statute would you push to enact in your state?

 

My answers would be:

 

1. Probably so.

2. I'm torn. Roe is weak & fuzzy legally and we have paid a price by removing the issue from the legislative sphere. We've never had the discussion in a meaningful way since Roe was decided. Judicial fiat has removed this topic from the legislative process and the position of the two camps has become increasingly polarized precisely because there is no consequence to all of this talk. Requiring state legislatures to deal with the issue would force compromises and a discussion of the issue.

 

We will have other issues which call on society to make decisions about what it means to be human (e.g. genetic modification, cloning, etc) and right now we do not have the consensus on this issue which we might.

 

I do not have strong feelings about when human life begins or, for that matter, what even constitutes "human life." I reject any religious concept in this discussion, although, strangely, I do not recall hearing a pro-lifers quote any specific scripture as to exactly when a soul enters the body. A fetus is "human" and it is "life" however we mean much more when we put those two words together. Societies have an interest in defining and protecting innocent human life and those societies erring on the side of protecting life are usually better places to live.

 

We may never have a definitive answer to the question of the status of the fetus, not because we won't be able to define it more precisely medically but the issue requires us to define human life and then articulate why it is precious. All of the standards we can imagine - intelligence, consciousness, viability, etc, - do not work well outside of the womb.

 

In the face of this inherent uncertainty, I do not see how either side can be dogmatic. I have a very hard time dictating to a woman what she should do with a fetus that is inside of her body (I won't say the fetus is "her body" because this begs the question). In the face of this uncertainty my deference would be to the individual involved.

 

OTOH, I'm not so certain about this issue that I'd be completely appalled if the courts stopped allowing us to duck the question. I certainly think the question is close enough that we can require accurate information about the process given to minors and that parents be notified.

 

Overall, I prefer to keep the uneasy truce that exists. Although I was never impressed with the legal reasoning of Roe, I would defer to the precedent. I do not view Roe as similar to a Dred Scott type of case where the result was so clearly wrong that it should be unraveled after a long history of reaffirmation.

 

3&4. Not directly; however, I don't have a huge problem with parental notification requirements and the like.

[padren]

1) Too early to tell. It would outrage many people, and it would require a continuation of conservative overemphasis in politics, which is likely to swing back at some point before such a ruling could be made.

 

2) I'd say no. I think the issue should be scrutinized scientifically and exhaustively, I am quite certian a fertilized egg cannot be considered a person, but a child that is a week from being born, or born prematurely, are effectively the same. I do think we need to err on the side of protecting the child, but I think we can safely allow the abortion of early pregnancies without fear of aborting a child - where one ends and the other starts needs to be scientifically investigated though, and by those without biases large enough to compromise their professional objectivity.

 

3) We need to understand what is an is not human life better before we can apply it to abortion. Taking a human life... I don't think anyone has ever claimed that should be a right in terms of abortion.

 

The questions are:

 

i. Can a state interfere with a woman's choice to have an abortion (due to her personal rights) by banning abortions?

ii. Can a state interfere with an unborn child's right (or pre-child's right) to protection of its welfare by allowing abortions?

 

The first is the issue of if they can be banned, the second is if they can be allowed. If there is a federal consitutional ruling on one or both, it effects the state's options differently.

 

 

4) I would push the need for more research and documentation of a scientific nature to determine when abortion changes from stopping a pregancy to killing a child. I don't even know if this would likely be able to be "settled" by such research, but we should be able to get more people to agree on what is and is not a safe cut off point.

[zyncod]

1. I am an avowed liberal. Pretty much a communist. And somebody whose life's work is in biology.

2. No human life should be taken past the third trimester. Ever. Even in rape situations. What makes us human is our unique minds, not the unique combination of DNA that results from fertilization. When people become capable of thinking, they become human.

3. Before then, and, especially in the first trimester, it's ok. To be honest, after many hours spent observing mammalian stem cells, there is obviously no evidence of sentience.

 

And that's why Alito sucks. This issue is fundamental to so many Americans - on both sides of the coin. And, like his nominator, Alito simply does not have the courage to come out and say what he believes to be really true.

[In My Memory]

Oh' date=' hell, might as well get this out there since it is primarily what the confirmation hearing was about (and since I love to stir up controversy).

 

1. Will Roe be reversed?

2. Should Roe be reversed?

3. If Roe is reversed, should state legislatures restrict the woman's right to choose an abortion and/or right to take human life?

4. If so, what sort of statute would you push to enact in your state?[/quote']

1. No.

 

2. Morally, no. Its not immoral. When it comes to morality, the question that matters is whether its morally acceptable to take the life of an unborn fetus, and I think an unborn fetus lacks pretty much all morally relevant characterists like the capacity to suffer, have wants, hold interests, etc. Without these moral qualities, there are no competing moral interests to weigh against having an abortion, so abortion is not immoral.

 

Legally, I'm not sure.

 

3. No.

 

4. Ban on congressmen legislating morality until they've taken at least 2 years of ethics and bioethics at an accredited university or with professor IMM .

[zyncod]

2. Morally, no. Its not immoral. When it comes to morality, the question that matters is whether its morally acceptable to take the life of an unborn fetus, and I think an unborn fetus lacks pretty much all morally relevant characterists like the capacity to suffer, have wants, hold interests, etc. Without these moral qualities, there are no competing moral interests to weigh against having an abortion, so abortion is not immoral.

 

Oh, bullshit. I know that you're going to hate this, IMM, but my boss made a mistake once with a cage of mice for an experiment. A female was put in with a cage of males, and lo and behold, she got pregnant (very pregnant). The endpoint of the experiment was euthanization by CO2, but neonates are very resistant to oxygen deprivation. So I had to kill 10 fetuses by cardiac puncture, which made that a bad day.

 

Anyway, the point is, these 'fetuses' really, really, did not want to die. The fact is, at a certain point in development in the womb, people become people and mice become mice. It really does not happen at birth, and partial birth abortion proponents really hurt the case of all us thinking people.

[In My Memory]

Zyncod,

The fact is, at a certain point in development in the womb, people become people and mice become mice. It really does not happen at birth, and partial birth abortion proponents really hurt the case of all us thinking people.

In other words, you cant say partial birth abortion is acceptable unless your a non-thinking person. *IMM fishes poison out of the well*

 

I'm not sure if you know this, but I agree with you. A fetus becomes a person (morally valuable) at some point during pregnancy, and I think this occurs when it develops the morally relevant capacity to experience suffering (which I if I remember correctly, occurs shortly before the 26th week). I dont really know what your disagreement with me is, unless you have a more abstract definition of what a person is, or you think a fetus develops morally relevant characteristics sometime earlier.

[zyncod]

In other words, you cant say partial birth abortion is acceptable unless your a non-thinking person.

 

Well, yes, that was the subtly ironic point.

 

'm not sure if you know this, but I agree with you. A fetus becomes a person (morally valuable) at some point during pregnancy, and I think this occurs when it develops the morally relevant capacity to experience suffering (which I if I remember correctly, occurs shortly before the 26th week). I dont really know what your disagreement with me is, unless you have a more abstract definition of what a person is, or you think a fetus develops morally relevant characteristics sometime earlier.

 

Ok. Sorry. I just assumed (oops) that your use of the term fetus rather than embryo meant that you thought that termination was acceptable through birth. I know, I know, "fetus" applies after the first 2 months, but the popular conception of fetus is much later.

 

And I don't think that causing suffering is so much the point as extinguishing nascent consciousness. Otherwise, why not just kill everybody at birth with a quick, painless injection?

[budullewraagh]

i hardly think the current discussion is relevant, and i will explain below.

 

1. maybe

2. certainly not

3. more certainly not

4. i'd push for nullification just to piss off the republican extremists who have been pushing for states' rights and nullification forever

 

the constitutionality or lack thereof of abortion, partial birth abortion, etc is totally irrelevant. i ask how any law related to abortion could possibly be enforced. would we prosecute hospitals? doctors? mother? fathers? all? would we launch a criminal investigation for every miscarriage? and we'd see a whole lot of back alley abortions, which we really don't want to see. so, in summary, we'd spend a whooole lot of money and we would hardly get anything out of it.

[Skye]

I don't think that this precedent will be overturned. I don't think this is the realistic aim for most of the conservative politicians in appointing conservative judges. I think the aim is to interpret the 'right to an abortion' in a different way, one that imposes greater responsibilities on someone who wishes to have an abortion.

[doG]

IMO, Roe v Wade was a twisted attempt by the court to legislate and it should be overturned. The privacy issue addressed in that case should be taken care of by legitimate legislation.

 

IMO, the Roe v. Wade decision wasn't even necessary to enable abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits abortion so it was already legal.

 

At any rate this is not an issue for the court to decide what the law should or should not be. Congress should be called to task to do it's own job if it's concerned about what is and what is not the law. It is not the court's job to write law through judicial fiat. Congress should quit attempting to find judges that will do so with ingenious interpretations of the law. The law should say what it means and mean what it says.

[Jim]

Well' date=' yes, that was the subtly ironic point.

 

 

 

Ok. Sorry. I just assumed (oops) that your use of the term fetus rather than embryo meant that you thought that termination was acceptable through birth. I know, I know, "fetus" applies after the first 2 months, but the popular conception of fetus is much later.

 

And I don't think that causing suffering is so much the point as extinguishing nascent consciousness. Otherwise, why not just kill everybody at birth with a quick, painless injection?[/quote']

 

Speaking of the language, I've never been sure why prolifers usually accept the term "abortion" which does imply stopping something before it has reached a point of no return.

[-Demosthenes-]

Oh' date=' hell, might as well get this out there since it is primarily what the confirmation hearing was about (and since I love to stir up controversy).

 

1. Will Roe be reversed?

2. Should Roe be reversed?

...

[/quote']

 

1) I don't know.

 

2) Depends on your personal opinion.

 

the constitutionality or lack thereof of abortion, partial birth abortion, etc is totally irrelevant. i ask how any law related to abortion could possibly be enforced. would we prosecute hospitals? doctors? mother? fathers? all? would we launch a criminal investigation for every miscarriage? and we'd see a whole lot of back alley abortions, which we really don't want to see. so, in summary, we'd spend a whooole lot of money and we would hardly get anything out of it.

Depends on your opinion, whether you think that killing a fetus is wrong (and if so, how wrong), doesn't it?

[Jim]

1) I don't know.

 

2) Depends on your personal opinion.

 

Depends on your opinion' date=' whether you think that killing a fetus is wrong (and if so, how wrong), doesn't it?[/quote']

 

 

Don't the answers to most of the questions posed on the politics topic depend on the opinion of the poster? *scratches head*

[patcalhoun]

Don't the answers to most of the questions posed on the politics topic depend on the opinion of the poster? *scratches head*

 

The answers to any question depend on personal opinion. Question is whether offered opinions are equally valuable. I'd bet there's little value in either law or politics for "depends on your personal opinion" where it concerns Roe.

[-Demosthenes-]

Don't the answers to most of the questions posed on the politics topic depend on the opinion of the poster? *scratches head*

You are beginning to see my point.

[Jim]

You are beginning to see my point.

 

That we should disband the politics forums?

[-Demosthenes-]

The answers to any question depend on personal opinion. Question is whether offered opinions are equally valuable. I'd bet there's little value in either law or politics for "depends on your personal opinion" where it concerns Roe.

Which opinions are "valuable" depends on opinion doesn't it? (Not about your post, about the whole subject in general) I am beginning to understand why my English or Philosophy professors just refuse to accept papers on abortion.

[philcandless]

Which opinions are "valuable" depends on opinion doesn't it? (Not about your post, about the whole subject in general) I am beginning to understand why my English or Philosophy professors just refuse to accept papers on abortion.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the dullness of reading through dozens upon dozens of similary themed papers year after year had something to do it.

[Soonerborn]

1. no

2. yes

3. yes

4. no abortions after 22 weeks unless mothers life threatened. Parents of underage mothers and wed spouses should be notified and have say in the matter.

 

I say 22 weeks because it errs on the side of caution. Its plenty of time to determine pregnancy and make a choice.

 

While I am against abortion, in most cases, I think its necessary because we all know that making things like this illegal just makes it go underground and creates more problems. A person should be held accountable for their actions. Men are held financially accountable regardless if they wanted the mother to keep the baby or not. Women should also accept responsibility for their actions. Any person choosing to have an abortion just because they dont want the baby is morally bankrupt.

 

I just love the irony in people that equate a human life to an animal one then find it perfectly acceptable to terminate a human life simply because it hasnt been pushed out a vagina, as if somehow the act of birthing determines life. You can spot these types quickly because they use the words "fetus" and "it" alot, I guess denying a persons existence makes them feel better about murder.

[Nemesio]

I just love the irony in people that equate a human life to an animal one then find it perfectly acceptable to terminate a human life simply because it hasnt been pushed out a vagina, as if somehow the act of birthing determines life.

 

You are misrepresenting that position, whether intentionally or in error. Whereas a zygote is human life from conception, that doesn't entail that it is a person. That is, think about the morally relevant qualities that defines what a person is. A zygote doesn't have these qualities, it just has the potential of developing them. A zygote is merely a clump of cells, containing, at that moment, no more personhood than any other randomly selected clump of cells.

 

By contrast, animals do have these qualities. This is an argument (among many) that animal advocates make and why they can be perfectly comfortable with abortions as late as 24 weeks or so, when the capacities for personhood manifest themselves, but still demand that animals be afforded moral consideration.

 

Now, if you want to use the argument of ensoulment (and that it takes place at conception), that's fine and, naturally, abortion would be murder. But ensoulment is a religious concept and doesn't carry any currency in a system that claims a separation of Church and State; that is, just because one believes that a zygote has a soul doesn't entail that such an opinion be imposed upon the person who doesn't believe it. From a legal standpoint, the issue has to be one of rights, and a person has them, and a non-person doesn't.

 

Nemesio

[Jim]

Which opinions are "valuable" depends on opinion doesn't it? (Not about your post, about the whole subject in general) I am beginning to understand why my English or Philosophy professors just refuse to accept papers on abortion.

 

I honestly do not understand this mindset. Why is this one topic off limits for some people? I don't say this to be confrontational and I certainly understand that there are some issues that may not be resolvable given the current state of human intelligence. At the same time, I don't understand why this is the one topic where you think opinions don't count. Could you explain?

[JustStuit]

The Roe v Wade was needed otherwise there would be countless other people taking it to court.

[Jim]

The Roe v Wade was needed otherwise there would be countles other people taking it to court.

 

Legislatures have tried to nibble at the edges of Roe for quite a while but it would be fruitless to challenge Roe directly.

 

I agree with your main point, however. I know some Republican legislators who are praying Roe is never overturned. The last thing they want is to have to deal with this issue.

[Soonerborn]

You are misrepresenting that position, whether intentionally or in error......

 

I agree with what you are saying. I think I didnt make myself clear enough. In the part you quoted I was referring to abortions late in the pregnancy. There are plenty of people who find it acceptable to have an abortion well after the point where a fetus develops into a human life. Not a majority of pro abortionists but enough that I run into them too often.

 

I do believe that humans have a soul at the moment of conception but I also realize that my religious belief system should not have any bearing on the laws we all have to follow. I am also against abortion at any point of the pregnancy because it allows people to escape responsibility for their actions. I am against late term abortions because its obvious that it would be killing a human life.

[-Demosthenes-]

I honestly do not understand this mindset. Why is this one topic off limits for some people? I don't say this to be confrontational and I certainly understand that there are some issues that may not be resolvable given the current state of human intelligence. At the same time, I don't understand why this is the one topic where you think opinions don't count. Could you explain?

People agree about a lot of things, we should hurt others for example. Most people can agree that we shouldn't hit someone because it will hurt them. Abortion is a unique opinion in that it is based on one thing really, whether or not the fetus has any moral worth. You can't really argue based on the common opinion we shouldn't hurt others (or most any other accepted opinion), because some think that a fetus is morally worthless. What do you have left to argue about? It all boils down to an ideological war, between two different opinions that can't be as easily supported by other generally accepted facts/opinions.