Jump to content

If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it wouldn’t ban abortion


NolaAuTiger

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

1) I didn't say it was "uniquely favored by one party or the other".

2) I didn't say or imply liberal judges seldom adhered to stare decisis.

3) Finally, it's not true that liberal and/or conservative justices have "always" adhered to stare decisis.  History shows plenty of SCOTUS decisions that were overturned by later courts, thus ignoring stare decisis

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

I said what I said, that generally speaking, adhering to stare decisis is more of a conservative trait (resistance to change) than a liberal one (welcoming change).  Period.

It seems to me that you are going out of your way to find a way to disagree with that, even to the extent of misrepresenting my statement to do so.  In the future, please try to focus on what I did say, instead of what you think I meant.  

It’s not a conservative trait. Rather, both conservative and liberal justices have penned decisions that overturn prior precedent. It favors neither side. To argue otherwise is ignorant. I’m not going out of my way to disagree. What you said isn’t correct

Overturning a case doesn’t equate to “ignoring” the doctrine. All courts are bound by precedent, but that doesn’t mean they must always rule in line with that prior precedent. They can’t just flat out ignore and rule against precedent with no justification. For example, there have been monumental cases where the court acknowledged its prior precedent, but found such precedent to be incompatible with the constitution. To say that judges can ignore it is misleading.

By adhering to it, I mean they acknowledge its authority, in all cases. They have to, especially when they overturn their own rulings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 527
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

But the born don’t have rights? There are people all over this country who, depending on decisions made by the GOP, could lose healthcare due to pre-existing conditions. Does life not matter outside the womb? 

Yes, life matters outside of the womb. But being pro life doesn’t logically mean you have to also support paying for other’s healthcare. There’s no contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I think it bothers you, assuming you’re an evangelical, that I noted that Trump is a man whose life doesn’t follow the teaching of Christ yet he was chosen by followers of Christ. How does a Christian support someone so morally flawed to the highest position in the land, one that requires a moral compass?  But that’s just my opinion. 

A Christian supported Trump because on the other side of the ticket was Satan's bride.  It was either vote for someone that still believes in America or someone that believes in a world with open borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Then let’s not call it pro life. It’s pro birth. It’s the hypocrisy I take issue with. 

And yes, this administration wants to remove the law that protects people with pre-existing conditions. So in effect they aren’t protecting life. 

And I’m  amazed at the argument that you don’t want to pay for healthcare for others but never complain about all the corporate welfare handed out through tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d much rather my tax dollars take care of a cancer patient than line the pockets of a wealthy business man. 

Your issue with healthcare doesn’t bear on whether it’s ok to actively and deliberately abort a baby in the womb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That sounds very noble, but the plain facts are repealing a woman's right to an abortion is a state intervention into her privacy.

I understand all the counter arguments and I understand the moral dilemma between prioritizing the woman's rights over the fetus's.  That's why it's a dilemma.  Simply denying that one half of the dilemma (such as denying the fact the state establishes jurisdiction over the woman's body) does not make that fact - and thus, the dilemma - disappear.

In other words, it doesn't matter how eloquently one defends one side of the argument, it doesn't make the other side irrelevant.   

Thanks. We’ve shared our respective views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think you’re asking, should pro-lifers support socializing health care. Here:

If you mean, “Shouldn’t they, in general” then that’s entirely a question about the merits of universal healthcare, and the “pro-life” qualifier is irrelevant.

I believe that Boston Red Sox fans should support freedom of speech, but only because I believe everyone should support freedom of speech, and I believe that Democrats should support due process of law, but only because I believe everyone should support due process of law.


But if you mean, “Shouldn’t they, because they’re pro-life” then I’d say no—or at least, not unless they see merit in it.

That is to say, there is nothing at all inconsistent about being pro-life and opposing universal healthcare.

First off, there is a difference between actively killing an unborn baby and simply not doing everything possible to prevent the death of some person, born or unborn.

Let’s cut through the BS rhetoric—no one is trying to “take” anyone’s healthcare or “prevent” anyone from obtaining medical care. The debate is over whether I should pay for your healthcare. By declining to pay, I leave you no worse off than if I’d never existed at all—I have harmed you in no way whatsoever.

Second, many people simply disagree about whether universal healthcare is the best way to ensure quality care for the greatest segment of society.

Neither of those debates has anything to do with whether it is OK to actively and deliberately kill an unborn child.

If one's base argument against abortion is the moral argument that it kills an unborn child, then how one considers laws that affect already existing children are profoundly relevant.

If one is cavalier about practices or laws that will kill or harm innocents, it devalues their "pro-life" position on abortion.

Likewise, if one is simply accepting of the fact we routinely kill innocents - or in the case of Yemen for example,  help to kill innocents -  it also undermines their moralistic "pro-life" position.

The harsh realities exist.  All the rhetoric in the world cannot make them go away.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AUatHeart said:

A Christian supported Trump because on the other side of the ticket was Satan's bride.  It was either vote for someone that still believes in America or someone that believes in a world with open borders.

Good grief. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read all of this, "a woman's right to choose" and "jurisdiction over a woman's body" and "murderer."  Why can't we all just agree that if a man and a woman chose to use contraceptives (which are readily available all over the place) this issue may go away altogether.  My issue with abortion is that I believe it is mostly used as contraception, when the man and the woman are too careless to use another form of birth control while in the act of conceiving!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I understand the moral dilemma between prioritizing the woman's rights over the fetus's.  That's why it's a dilemma

Some good points Brother Homer

While I am anti abortion and find it hard to understand doctors willing to perform the procedures,  I do not advocate bombing abortion clinics.  I would think that most girls or young couples seeking abortion have not reached an age to form opinion on most things, unfortunately. Roe v Wade, do not think it will be touched. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes, life matters outside of the womb. But being pro life doesn’t logically mean you have to also support paying for other’s healthcare. There’s no contradiction.

Sorry, but there is a logical conflict in insisting a fetus has the right to be born and ignoring the healthcare rights of the resulting baby.

If not, then it would be logically OK for a woman to have an unwanted child, then simply deny that child the care it needs to survive. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If one's base argument against abortion is the moral argument that it kills an unborn child, then how one considers laws that affect already existing children are profoundly relevant.

If one is cavalier about practices or laws that will kill or harm innocents, it devalues their "pro-life" position on abortion.

Likewise, if one is simply accepting of the fact we routinely kill innocents - or in the case of Yemen for example,  help to kill innocents -  it also undermines their moralistic "pro-life" position.

The harsh realities exist.  All the rhetoric in the world cannot make them go away.  

 

So if I believe that government healthcare programs are an inadequate substitute for strong families that support each other and provide for themselves, or if I agree that I shouldn’t have to cover someone’s doctor office expenses - essentially leaving them in the same position they would’ve been had I never existed - I’ve somehow undermined my pro-life position?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, but there is a logical conflict in insisting a fetus has the right to be born and ignoring the healthcare rights of the resulting baby.

If not, then it would be logically OK for a woman to have an unwanted child, then simply deny that child the care it needs to survive. 

 

There’s absolutely no logical conflict if am pro-life, yet oppose a universal healthcare program on its particular merits. Being pro-life imposes no logical obligation to support a government-created healthcare system. After examining and understanding the fundamental tenants of such program, I can be for or against it. The hypocrisy you allege is nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sister Chittiser reflects my own view pretty effectively here.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It’s not a conservative trait. Rather, both conservative and liberal justices have penned decisions that overturn prior precedent. It favors neither side. To argue otherwise is ignorant. I’m not going out of my way to disagree. What you said isn’t correct

Overturning a case doesn’t equate to “ignoring” the doctrine. All courts are bound by precedent, but that doesn’t mean they must always rule in line with that prior precedent. They can’t just flat out ignore and rule against precedent with no justification. For example, there have been monumental cases where the court acknowledged its prior precedent, but found such precedent to be incompatible with the constitution. To say that judges can ignore it is misleading.

By adhering to it, I mean they acknowledge its authority, in all cases. They have to, especially when they overturn their own rulings.

I think we are talking past each other.

I am using the term "conservative" in the classic sense.

Precedent. Stare Decisis. Settled expectations. Love ’em or hate ’em, these are the very foundation of judicial conservativism. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/63982/the-last-conservative

 

I will agree with you than the term "conservative" no longer has much meaning, and many so called "conservative" judges today are more than ready to ignore stare decisis:

 

....Souter has been the court’s only true judicial conservative for the past 19 years....

By contrast, the justices we think of as the genuine conservatives, led most prominently by John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, have made no secret of their eagerness to dump, trash, ignore, overrule, overturn, bury and immolate volume after volume of the Supreme Court’s liberal precedents.....

Since John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined the Supreme Court, there have been a parade of cases where the court has been quite willing to ignore judicially conservative principles such as stare decisis, and instead radically revise and revisit settled cases in areas ranging from school desegregation (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District) to free speech for students (Morse v. Frederick) to death-sentence appeal rights (Lawrence v. Florida).

(op. cit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So if I believe that government healthcare programs are an inadequate substitute for strong families that support each other and provide for themselves, or if I agree that I shouldn’t have to cover someone’s doctor office expenses - essentially leaving them in the same position they would’ve been had I never existed - I’ve somehow undermined my pro-life position?

 

That's a very disingenuous response.  There is no inherent conflict between strong families and government healthcare programs. 

Hell, I'd also prefer that all families were strong - and wealthy enough - to not need government healthcare help.  But to suggest that's the competing "plan" is absurd.

And yes, if you do not recognize a societal responsibility to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it, you have certainly undermined your so called "pro-life" position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Your issue with healthcare doesn’t bear on whether it’s ok to actively and deliberately abort a baby in the womb. 

I didn’t mean for it to bear on the right or wrongs of having an abortion. I just find it blatant hypocrisy to scream against abortion then opppose affordable healthcare, birth control, increased wages, you know things that prevent women from choosing abortion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Sister Chittiser reflects my own view pretty effectively here.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Exactly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

There’s absolutely no logical conflict if am pro-life, yet oppose a universal healthcare program on its particular merits. Being pro-life imposes no logical obligation to support a government-created healthcare system. After examining and understanding the fundamental tenants of such program, I can be for or against it. The hypocrisy you allege is nonexistent.

Being "pro-life" imposes an obligation to support healthcare to whomever needs it, however it is provided (which is a different question.)  If you are "pro-life" regarding a fetus, then you must necessarily be "pro-life" to those who are born.

The hypocrisy of your position is self-evident to any thinking objective person, even if you are blind to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I think we are talking past each other.

I am using the term "conservative" in the classic sense.

Precedent. Stare Decisis. Settled expectations. Love ’em or hate ’em, these are the very foundation of judicial conservativism. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/63982/the-last-conservative

 

I will agree with you than the term "conservative" no longer has much meaning, and many so called "conservative" judges today are more than ready to ignore stare decisis:

 

....Souter has been the court’s only true judicial conservative for the past 19 years....

By contrast, the justices we think of as the genuine conservatives, led most prominently by John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, have made no secret of their eagerness to dump, trash, ignore, overrule, overturn, bury and immolate volume after volume of the Supreme Court’s liberal precedents.....

Since John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined the Supreme Court, there have been a parade of cases where the court has been quite willing to ignore judicially conservative principles such as stare decisis, and instead radically revise and revisit settled cases in areas ranging from school desegregation (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District) to free speech for students (Morse v. Frederick) to death-sentence appeal rights (Lawrence v. Florida).

(op. cit.)

Agreed. 

The author of the article does disservice to the Justices. I’m willing to bet he interprets any of their dissents in cases which the majority relied on a prior ruling as “ignoring stare decisis.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, homersapien said:

Being pro-life imposes an obligation to support healthcare to whomever needs it, however it is provided (which is a different question.)  If you are pro life to a fetus, then you must necessarily be pro-life to those who are born.

The hypocrisy of your position is self-evident to any thinking objective person, even if you are blind to it.

So you are saying that we can be anti abortion which makes us pro life unless we oppose free healthcare which deems us not pro-life. It is a mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

One way to spin it anyway.

Do you considering any reasoning to be "spin"? :dunno:

It made a lot of sense to me.  And it certainly didn't seem to be distorted or slanted for a political purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's a very disingenuous response.  There is no inherent conflict between strong families and government healthcare programs. 

Hell, I'd also prefer that all families were strong - and wealthy enough - to not need government healthcare help.  But to suggest that's the competing "plan" is absurd.

And yes, if you do not recognize a societal responsibility to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it, you have certainly undermined your so called "pro-life" position.

I disagree you. It’s absurd to assert that a pro-lifer undermines their position on abortion by opposing a government healthcare program. Hell, why can’t they disagree with the implementation, among other considerations, without “undermining” their stance on abortion? 

What you propose, that pro lifers-by virtue of their beliefs on abortion-impose upon themselves an obligation to support universal healthcare, is illogical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I didn’t mean for it to bear on the right or wrongs of having an abortion. I just find it blatant hypocrisy to scream against abortion then opppose affordable healthcare, birth control, increased wages, you know things that prevent women from choosing abortion. 

But it’s not hypocritical. Those issues don’t speak to actively and deliberately killing a baby inside of the womb. 

You mean universal healthcare? What type of policy are you referring to? How would it be implemented? Why can’t a decision about opposing/not opposing a program be made after considering he specifics of the policy?

No, pro lifers aren’t obligated to support any ol’ healthcare program written up by the government. Hell, what would be the point in reading it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

So you are saying that we can be anti abortion which makes us pro life unless we oppose free healthcare which deems us not pro-life. It is a mess. 

You need to revise that, as I am not sure what it says.

But in general, if you oppose efforts to provide people needed healthcare regardless of their means to pay, you cannot be "pro-life" for the reasons stated.

ACA is a mess.  But at least it was an attempt to take a step in the right direction.   All of the efforts the Trump administration has taken to further weaken the ACA are not "pro-life" as they tend to negate or place additional barriers to facilitating the provision of healthcare to everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...