Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[LeftyGunner]

One other thing. The priority that people of different worldviews makes a lot of difference in how one view's the other side of the argument. I'm sure Chip thinks you are overstating the risks of pregnancy and trivializing the rights of the unborn. So do you think you have any greater moral authority to claim he's overstating the importance of the unborn while trivializing the risks inherent in pregnancy, than he has to say you're overstating those risks, and trivializing the importance of the life of the unborn.

No, none at all. I was trying to illustrate the vey point you make, but you did it better.

Is the risk to the mother zero? No. Is the importance of the unborn zero? No. I think it's unreasonable to claim either. And I think we could infer some things about the opposite end. Is the risk of the mother everything? Is the importance of the unborn everything?

In one of my earlier posts I explained my discomfort with black-and-white legislation of gray area issues. Your post explains the gray of this issue quite well.

 

[Twangbanger]

Certainly, it is not a matter for the central state.

I'm not a legal expert, but it would seem to me that now that the RvW "trimester" thing stands to be cleared out of the way, abortion to the minute before birth could theoretically become the law of the land in places like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California.

It's almost going to feel like a step backwards for many, when women from Indiana, South Carolina, Missouri, etc., etc., etc. are able to travel to another state and get a legal abortion at nine months - when they (technically) couldn't before.

This will be a real test of whether or not we really believe the Federal Government has no interest in defending the kitchen-table, non-Constitutionally-defined rights of an individual, and whether the question is truly best left up to the moral reasoning of the States.

In fact, this might be one theoretical rationale for why a conservative clerk could have leaked the decision. To give time for the gears to churn in peoples' heads, make some realizations about the vacuum that's about to be created...and give time for the Supreme Court to consider taking a precise, pointed interest in guaranteeing the rights of individuals in a way not intended in the Constitution.

Everybody still feeling "states' rights" is the proper doctrine? (There's still time left to scrape the Hawaiian fruit off that pizza).

I mean...they could just straight-up outlaw all abortions by fiat. We don't have the final decision yet.

 

[KLB]

I'm not a legal expert, but it would seem to me that now that the RvW "trimester" thing stands to be cleared out of the way, abortion to the minute before birth could theoretically become the law of the land in places like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California.

They already could make those laws. RvW only got in the way of limiting abortions, not enabling them.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm not a legal expert, but it would seem to me that now that the RvW "trimester" thing stands to be cleared out of the way, abortion to the minute before birth could theoretically become the law of the land in places like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California.

It's almost going to feel like a step backwards for many, when women from Indiana, South Carolina, Missouri, etc., etc., etc. are able to travel to another state and get a legal abortion at nine months - when they (technically) couldn't before.

RvW only prohibits banning abortions before a certain time, it does not prohibit banning them after that time. There are already 7 states that a pregnant woman can get an abortion at 9 months legally without having to have an exception such as risk of death of the mother.

An Overview of Abortion Laws

www.guttmacher.org

They already could make those laws. RvW only got in the way of limiting abortions, not enabling them.

Yep, and some already have them.

 

[chipbennett]

I think you trivialize the risks inherent in pregnancy in order to dismiss a pregnant woman’s right to choose the path of least harm for herself.

That's certainly not my intent. If I am overlooking any particular, known risks to the mother during early pregnancy, let me know. (I have referenced ectopic pregnancy, which if untreated is fatal for all involved.)

Proving that gestating human life is actually, well, human life is only one part of the problem, as is determining when the law should recognize that gestating human as possessing basic human rights. Even if we assume that a two-cell zygote has full legal rights, there is still a potential conflict between those rights and the rights of the mother.

If a pregnant woman does not have a moral conflict with ending the life of her unborn child herself, why should I? That’s between her, her unborn child, and her moral authority, and in my view she alone speaks for all three.

thank you for your continued replies.!

But, why? Why does the mother speak for the unborn child (a separate human), particularly when what is spoken is the desire and willingness to end the life of the unborn child?

(As parents, we often must speak for our children - but as loving parents, we are bound to use that voice to protect and defend the rights and well-being of our children. Sometimes, tragically, that involves using that voice to make end-of-life decisions for our children - but that is generally an act of love to prevent further suffering, which is a far cry from the intent, desire, and action involved in abortion.)

 

[chipbennett]

Right, and I don't think anyone denies the science behind that, though I suppose people who think as you do might think we're dismissive, if not denying. It's a human with it's own distinct DNA. The issue is to most people is I guess a question of "personhood".

Again I will direct you to the two image I posted the other day. I'm not gonna look them up and post them again. I think you'll remember. The one was an image of a zygote. The other was an image of a baby just born as the umbilical cord is cut. To people without the idea of a soul that God breathed life into, that first image does not seem like a person. So it doesn't feel to people like aborting it is killing a person.

But, as the pregnancy gets to later stages, people start having more of a problem with it, because "it" starts to become a lot more like a person. As a zygote, it has potency. Not really a lot more than that, in terms of "personhood". But at some point, it has the things people have. Heartbeat, arms, legs, feet, head, genitals, etcetera.

Sadly, I think that, throughout history, the concept of "personhood" has been used far too often as a means to deny/infringe, rather than to recognize/protect, unalienable human rights. Chattel slaves were not considered to be "persons." German Jews were not considered to be "persons." Humans born with certain disabilities and deformities were not considered to be "persons." Chinese Uighurs are not considered to be "persons." The unborn are not considered to be "persons."

I remember with my son, we were so happy that we were told the sex fairly early on. Now I'm sure BSC progressives will lose their **** because I said that. But because we knew the sex, we had already chosen the name for a boy, so then at the moment we knew the sex, he had a name. We came home from that appointment knowing his name. He was VERY much a person to us at that point. So I think a lot of the morality that goes into people's thinking has a lot to do with what people perceive is inside the womb at various stages. And that's why we see poll numbers change for allowing abortions at different stages of gestation.

Warning: I'm probably going to delve a bit into the religious/spiritual here.

The relationship between mother and unborn child during pregnancy is an amazing, wondrous, wonderful, awe-inspiring thing. The mother and child interact, at a physical, emotional, and (I believe) spiritual level, from very early in the pregnancy. It is something that men will never experience, and a particular blessing bestowed upon women. (As a father, I don't complain. I would not change my father-daughter relationship with either of my girls, for anything in the world. It is something unique and special in its own way - and my own, particular blessing.)

To me, though, that physical/emotional/spiritual bond between mother and unborn child proves beyond a doubt, that whatever a "person" is, that unborn child is such a person, at a very, very early stage of development. That belief is bolstered by my further belief that there is a God, who created humans as spiritual beings in His image, and that a human "person" is by and large a spiritual construct/state of being, not defined or limited by physical state or stage of development.

 

[KG1]

Let's not overturn RvW because it will create a vacuum. Let's keep RvW, as a buffer to prevent States from creating havoc even though RvW is a right never intended in the Constitution that was granted by fiat. We NEED RvW for stability!

 

[chipbennett]

You guys have spent 50 pages worth of words in just a couple of posts each!

Yeah, Jamil and I can be like that...

 

[jamil]

RvW only prohibits banning abortions before a certain time, it does not prohibit banning them after that time. There are already 7 states that a pregnant woman can get an abortion at 9 months legally without having to have an exception such as risk of death of the mother.

An Overview of Abortion Laws

www.guttmacher.org

Yep, and some already have them.

This is my understanding too. RvW established the trimester framework for evaluating a state's restrictions on abortions. So states could ban them anytime after that but not before. It never established a nationwide prohibition on abortions after the third trimester. Casey threw out the trimester standard and adopted the "undue burden" standard. But states could choose not to have any restrictions at all.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not a legal expert, but it would seem to me that now that the RvW "trimester" thing stands to be cleared out of the way, abortion to the minute before birth could theoretically become the law of the land in places like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California.

It's almost going to feel like a step backwards for many, when women from Indiana, South Carolina, Missouri, etc., etc., etc. are able to travel to another state and get a legal abortion at nine months - when they (technically) couldn't before.

This will be a real test of whether or not we really believe the Federal Government has no interest in defending the kitchen-table, non-Constitutionally-defined rights of an individual, and whether the question is truly best left up to the moral reasoning of the States.

In fact, this might be one theoretical rationale for why a conservative clerk could have leaked the decision. To give time for the gears to churn in peoples' heads, make some realizations about the vacuum that's about to be created...and give time for the Supreme Court to consider taking a precise, pointed interest in guaranteeing the rights of individuals in a way not intended in the Constitution.

Everybody still feeling "states' rights" is the proper doctrine? (There's still time left to scrape the Hawaiian fruit off that pizza).

I mean...they could just straight-up outlaw all abortions by fiat. We don't have the final decision yet.

Yes. I'm all for it. I welcome it. More humans will be saved from unjust killing than under the status quo. Also, it is the correct approach from a constitutional perspective.

And, last but certainly not least: I welcome the opportunity to unmask the left's "legal, safe, and rare" gaslighting about their true intent regarding legalization of abortion. By any objective standard, abortion at the point of birth is ghastly, ghoulish, and evil. I welcome the reality of that intent to be exposed.

 

[jamil]

Let's not overturn RvW because it will create a vacuum. Let's keep RvW, as a buffer to prevent States from creating havoc even though RvW is a right never intended in the Constitution that was granted by fiat. We NEED RvW for stability!

I don't think we need RvW for stability. It's a fabricated "law" written by an activist judge. For stability we need the rule of law, which RvW flies in the face of. But also, the laws we make have to be within Overton's window, the boundary around policies that most people believe are just. In the US, we have the ability to support 50+ Overton's windows. And I think that's the right place for controversial topics to be decided.

Greater restrictions on abortions are acceptable to Hoosiers than Californians. So let Hoosiers make the laws that fit in their Overton's window, and let Californians make theirs. We don't have to force the entire USA conform to one or the other. We do have a framework for that.

 

[jamil]

Yes. I'm all for it. I welcome it. More humans will be saved from unjust killing than under the status quo. Also, it is the correct approach from a constitutional perspective.

And, last but certainly not least: I welcome the opportunity to unmask the left's "legal, safe, and rare" gaslighting about their true intent regarding legalization of abortion. By any objective standard, abortion at the point of birth is ghastly, ghoulish, and evil. I welcome the reality of that intent to be exposed.

Let's remember Margaret Thatcher's infamous quote, "There's no such thing as a society...there are individuals, and there are families." So the idea is that we aggregate people into groups, but those groups are only a theoretical construct. Everyone who fits into the group construct IS an individual.

So "the Left" is a construct we make to describe individuals who's thinking is left of center politically. Within the left I still hear them saying that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Those are the people who still favor restrictions during gestation, but believe that abortion should be allowed in the earlier stages.

It's the BSC's among the left who seem to think abortion is something like a right of passage. Second wave feminists seem not to agree with the BSC's as far as I can tell. And it's the BSC's that seem to be firmly in the control of the DNC. So I think I would support the claim that it unmasks the Democrat's true nature. And it also looks to me like a lot of people on the left are abandoning their support of the Democrat party because they feel like the Democrat party abandoned them.

 

[KG1]

I don't think we need RvW for stability. It's a fabricated "law" written by an activist judge. For stability we need the rule of law, which RvW flies in the face of. But also, the laws we make have to be within Overton's window, the boundary around policies that most people believe are just. In the US, we have the ability to support 50+ Overton's windows. And I think that's the right place for controversial topics to be decided.

Greater restrictions on abortions are acceptable to Hoosiers than Californians. So let Hoosiers make the laws that fit in their Overton's window, and let Californians make theirs. We don't have to force the entire USA conform to one or the other. We do have a framework for that.

I agree that's why I posted it in purple. I only made the post because someone else was doing some mental handwringing and at least it appeared that they want everyone to give pause and rethink overturning RvW because it will create a vacuum if we do leading to chaos and instability as a nation if left up to each individual State to decide.

Ergo we NEED RvW in their estimation for stability over looking the fact that it was a right not intended in the Constitution granted by judicial fiat.

 

[jamil]

I agree that's why I posted it in purple. I only made the post because someone else was doing some mental handwringing and wants everyone to give pause and rethink overturning RvW because it will create a vacuum if we do leading to chaos and instability as a nation if left up to each individual State to decide.

Ergo we NEED RvW in their estimation for stability over looking the fact that it was a right granted by judicial fiat.

I get the purple. I was just saying.

Anyway, I think overturning RvW is the right move legally, constitutionally. I was very apprehensive about it being the right move politically. It will have some political consequences. But it also looks like not that much so far. Polls haven't seemed to budge. Democrats aren't getting the support for violent riots, looting and burning they thought they would get.

The "summer of love" looks like it may not happen at least to the extent they wanted. C'mon D's, get yer game on. It has to be frustrating to be a Democrat these days. Elon wrecks Twitter. SCOTUS wrecks RvW. Will no one bomb a building for their cause for **** sake?

Alinsky has to be turning in his grave. Where are all the BAMN folks? What does a BSC ideolog have to do to at least turn over some cars and burn some ****? C'mon. Doesn't anyone want free shoes anymore? Does a basketball rival from one ****-hole have to defeat another rival in another ****-hole in a big game to flip a car over? hell. You used to be able to wreck an entire town with a pithy slogan like "hands up don't shoot". What does a BSC ideologue need to do anymore to get a little action? Yeah, the riot season hasn't started out well for them yet.

 

[Twangbanger]

Yes. I'm all for it. I welcome it. More humans will be saved from unjust killing than under the status quo. Also, it is the correct approach from a constitutional perspective.

And, last but certainly not least: I welcome the opportunity to unmask the left's "legal, safe, and rare" gaslighting about their true intent regarding legalization of abortion. By any objective standard, abortion at the point of birth is ghastly, ghoulish, and evil. I welcome the reality of that intent to be exposed.

This is the most strategic way to look at it. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but my personal take has never been that abortion was something the SC fundamentally shouldn't be ruling on. It is that the SC did a crappy job before, and is justified in overturning their prior crappy work. Re-doing crappy work should always be allowed, no matter the profession.

Politically, it would be better if the SC just took it off the table the other direction. Leaving it on the table for the States to decide basically creates a race to the bottom to see which side can win the title of "Biggest BSC Tent." It will be an endless, state-by-state war where one side seeks to explicitly legalize abortion as late in pregnancy as possible, thereby turning their state into an abortion-mill for the rest of the nation, and the other side seeks to ban Plan B pills and force raped women to carry to term.

Some may relish such a national street-fight, going on for decades, but I don't. And I think a lot of people don't. I'm just not confident in "The Right's" ability to think on their feet and use "fight IQ" to prevail in that. The Left has a very effective playbook for ridiculing, marginalizing, and generally rendering ineffective, religious conservative politicians like Mike Pence and Richard Mourdock. It appears they will now have an opening to run that playbook in every legislative race down to the State Rep level. And if "The Right" is true to form, they're going to try to be true to their principles and lean-into that fight like a schnauzer fighting a German Shepherd. With what I believe will be a predictable result.

 

[KG1]

I get the purple. I was just saying.

Anyway, I think overturning RvW is the right move legally, constitutionally. I was very apprehensive about it being the right move politically. It will have some political consequences. But it also looks like not that much so far. Polls haven't seemed to budge. Democrats aren't getting the support for violent riots, looting and burning they thought they would get.

The post I was referring to is in regard to their view posing the question of whether or not we should still want to be in favor of a state's rights doctrine instead opposing a central state doctrine that wrongfully granted a right by fiat not intended by the Constitution. Their hesitancy appears to be based upon their reasoning of the potential risk of political and societal consequences if left up to each individual state to determine their own outcome pitting states against states in the event RvW is overturned.

 

[BigRed]

I have a few opinions re: the central state, but do not want to hijack the thread.

Suffice it to say, if there is one abortion I could support....

 

[KG1]

This is the most strategic way to look at it. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but my personal take has never been that abortion was something the SC fundamentally shouldn't be ruling on. It is that the SC did a crappy job before, and is justified in overturning their prior crappy work. Re-doing crappy work should always be allowed, no matter the profession.

Politically, it would be better if the SC just took it off the table the other direction. Leaving it on the table for the States to decide basically creates a race to the bottom to see which side can win the title of "Biggest BSC Tent." It will be an endless, state-by-state war where one side seeks to explicitly legalize abortion as late in pregnancy as possible, thereby turning their state into an abortion-mill for the rest of the nation, and the other side seeks to ban Plan B pills and force raped women to carry to term.

Some may relish such a national street-fight, going on for decades, but I don't. And I think a lot of people don't. I'm just not confident in "The Right's" ability to think on their feet and use "fight IQ" to prevail in that. The Left has a very effective playbook for ridiculing, marginalizing, and generally rendering ineffective, religious conservative politicians like Mike Pence and Richard Mourdock. It appears they will now have an opening to run that playbook in every legislative race down to the State Rep level. And if "The Right" is true to form, they're going to try to be true to their principles and lean-into that fight like a schnauzer fighting a German Shepherd. With what I believe will be a predictable result.

Well it looks like I might've been mistaken and you are in favor of overturing RvW because it was crappy jurisprudence and I agree.

Now it seems like you just want the court to swing the other way on what you think is best politically and swipe the whole issue off the table by fiat. That is not their mandate to decide what is best politically for the nation as a remedy.

It's not within their Constitutional purview to do so. Like it or not this is a states issue to be individually decided by the states.

 

[Shadow01]

If we can come to the conclusion that a human is dead when their heart no longer beats, why can’t we come to the conclusion that they are alive if the heart is beating?

 

[Shadow01]

I have to say that jamil and Chip are really fleshing this out very well…

I hope it doesn’t lead to them getting a room…