Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

13 hours ago, Didba said:

A "straw man fallacy" occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.  As such, the straw-man fallacy is considered to be a type of an informal logical fallacy, and specifically a type of a relevance fallacy, since the person using it is attacking a stance that is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

If I read this correctly (after all I am not a lawyer) you bring up pregnancy due to rape and incest is a *straw man* argument.  Is this correct?

[homersapien 11,353]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

For a man that does not believe in God you probably don’t understand the nuances.  I was thanking God, at that moment of the choosing of justices, that Trump was the President.  It does not mean I believe God bestowed Trump with some saint hood or ordained power to run the Country.

I never said I don't believe in God.  I just don't believe in your God.

And this isn't about "nuances", it's about weaseling and not owning your statements. 

[AU9377 4,913]

10 hours ago, cbo said:

I’m so tired of blaming the common person instead of the worthless politicians and flawed political system. Maybe voters should have had a better option in 2016? Hillary ran an incompetent and lazy campaign because she thought she had it in the bag. 

We voted Obama in when he promised he would ratify Roe v Wade. Then he decided it wasn’t a priority. 

If Trump won in 2020, the Democrats would now be telling us that this never would have happened if we voted for Biden. 

It’s time for the Democratic leaders to step up and do the damn job their supporters want them to do. They can pick from a handful of very popular causes that would actually invigorate their base. Get something done. And quit telling us to vote harder until they do. 

I understand the frustration, but this outcome is the direct result of Republican voters doing what Democratic voters are too lazy and lacking in vision to accomplish.  Legislation requires either a super majority or compromise and often both. It is unrealistic to expect a President to achieve legislative progress on issues important to him/her if they do not have some degree of cooperation in the legislative branches of government.  Obama achieved his number one goal.  He got something done with health care.  It isn't perfect and it is the result of compromise and full of pot holes, but it is movement. 

The Republicans have been consistently vigilant with respect to gaining control of the Court.  The Republicans in the Senate chose not to even grant a hearing for Obama's pick for the Supreme Court.  Obama nominated a moderate justice when he nominated Garland.  The Republicans didn't care who it was, he wasn't getting a hearing.  That is gutter politics at its finest.  If voters refuse to make Republicans pay a price for acting in that manner, they are endorsing that behavior.

Republicans voted for their candidate regardless of the stench.  They were focused on shaping the court.  They accomplished that goal.

Had those voters that I mentioned in the original post not sat on their hands and pitched a fit because Bernie lost, the Supreme Court would have had 3 Justices added that would not have been hell bent on overturning decisions like Roe.  Instead, they gave an assist to 4 years of Trump and now want to scream and yell as though they are shocked that this has happened.  If that is blaming the common person, then maybe they deserve that blame.  Until we move beyond this 2 party mess, we have to consider more than our feelings when we vote.

[AU9377 4,913]

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

The issue with Whether or not Roe legalized the killing of people all depends on the belief of when life begins - that’s what makes this topic so difficult to solve. 
 

Actually, there are people that have funerals for miscarriages as well. 
 

I haven’t heard any rational person arguments against birth control unless you get in the very fringe elements, and there isn’t enough pull there to pass anything that would become a law. 
 

My issue with Roe is in a couple of areas.  First is that I believe it is a clearly a state issue and not a Constitutional right.  Secondly is that the 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are clearly murder.  I think a “common ground” could likely be found for most people early enough, but the left is just as bad with the extremism they push.  

I completely agree with the last sentence of your comment.

Edited June 25, 2022 by AU9377

[TexasTiger 12,808]

11 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

…Except for the 200 years that it was not. 

You’re apparently applying a standard fundamental rights analysis. The fundamental right doesn’t only begin to exist when the Court recognizes it. By recognizing it, the Court is declaring it’s a fundamental right that existed prior to the Constitution and must be treated as such.

Roe was decided with weaker, more vague legal reasoning than it should have been. There are much stronger legal arguments. Most Conservative justices have autocratic tendencies and are more inclined toward governmental power than recognizing individual rights outside that power— so they ignore the 9th Amendment. They claim to be originalists when they are actually ideologues.

”Today, most legal conservatives purport to be constitutional originalists. What that means for the legal debate over abortion is that any purported originalist must face the question of whether abortion rights may be considered to be among the unenumerated rights "retained by the people" that Madison's Ninth Amendment was specifically written and ratified to protect. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organizationentirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.

Here is my answer to the question: Founding era history strongly supports the view that abortion rights, at least during the early stages of pregnancy, do fall within the orbit of Madison's Ninth Amendment. "When the United States was founded and for many subsequent decades, Americans relied on the English common law," explained an amicus brief filed in Dobbs by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. "The common law did not regulate abortion in early pregnancy. Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage. That is because the common law did not legally acknowledge a fetus as existing separately from a pregnant woman until the woman felt fetal movement, called 'quickening,' which could occur as late as the 25th week of pregnancy."

William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, made this exact point: Life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb."

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/?amp

[TexasTiger 12,808]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

I completely agree.

You agree that a 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion needed to address the health of the mother is murder?

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

― Ronald Reagan

[AU9377 4,913]

11 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

…Except for the 200 years that it was not. 

This is the nuance, for lack of a better word.  The right to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy was based on the fundamental right to privacy.  The fundamental right was the right to privacy, not the right to have an abortion.

The court has now decided that the right to privacy does not include the right to have an abortion.  The right to privacy is still considered to be a fundamental right in this country.

[TexasTiger 12,808]

Just now, AU9377 said:

This is the nuance, for lack of a better word.  The right to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy was based on the fundamental right to privacy.  The fundamental right was the right to privacy, not the right to have an abortion.

The court has now decided that the right to privacy does not include the right to have an abortion.  The right to privacy is still considered to be a fundamental right in this country.

In common law it was recognized that a woman had a right to terminate a pregnancy before quickening. It didn’t rely on being clumped under a vague right to privacy.

[AU9377 4,913]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You agree that a 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion needed to address the health of the mother is murder?

No.  I don't agree with that. I was agreeing with the last sentence of the comment.

 I think a “common ground” could likely be found for most people early enough, but the left is just as bad with the extremism they push.

[AU9377 4,913]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

In common law it was recognized that a woman had a right to terminate a pregnancy before quickening. It didn’t rely on being clumped under a vague right to privacy.

That is a fair point as well.

[TexasTiger 12,808]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

No.  I don't agree with that. I was agreeing with the last sentence of the comment.

 I think a “common ground” could likely be found for most people early enough, but the left is just as bad with the extremism they push.

UK— as I understand it— 15 weeks and then 2 MDs confirming the need afterwards.

[AU9377 4,913]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re apparently applying a standard fundamental rights analysis. The fundamental right doesn’t only begin to exist when the Court recognizes it. By recognizing it, the Court is declaring it’s a fundamental right that existed prior to the Constitution and must be treated as such.

Roe was decided with weaker, more vague legal reasoning than it should have been. There are much stronger legal arguments. Most Conservative justices have autocratic tendencies and are more inclined toward governmental power than recognizing individual rights outside that power— so they ignore the 9th Amendment. They claim to be originalists when they are actually ideologues.

”Today, most legal conservatives purport to be constitutional originalists. What that means for the legal debate over abortion is that any purported originalist must face the question of whether abortion rights may be considered to be among the unenumerated rights "retained by the people" that Madison's Ninth Amendment was specifically written and ratified to protect. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organizationentirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.

Here is my answer to the question: Founding era history strongly supports the view that abortion rights, at least during the early stages of pregnancy, do fall within the orbit of Madison's Ninth Amendment. "When the United States was founded and for many subsequent decades, Americans relied on the English common law," explained an amicus brief filed in Dobbs by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. "The common law did not regulate abortion in early pregnancy. Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage. That is because the common law did not legally acknowledge a fetus as existing separately from a pregnant woman until the woman felt fetal movement, called 'quickening,' which could occur as late as the 25th week of pregnancy."

William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, made this exact point: Life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb."

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/?amp

This is top shelf analysis.

I have been entertaining a 6 year old while commenting, which often doesn't result in the most thought out replies.  LOL

[homersapien 11,353]

".....Friday’s ruling is a triumph for the doctrine of originalism, with significant consequences for a country with an increasingly diverse and tolerant population. “The version of American history you get from constraining your historical evidence to the documents originalists see as mythical gives you centuries of constitutional history when women and people of color were completely disenfranchised,” historian Jill Lepore said Friday. “And that’s the basis now for the continued denial of rights.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-rolls-back-right-inflames-divided-country/

[TitanTiger 20,470]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Elaborate. 

Up until the latter part of the 20th century, we didn’t have the technology to be able to see inside the womb. We didn’t have the ability to take cameras in and actually watch fertilization happen. We had no way of knowing what was going on in there. So the first proof that a living human being was in there was “quickening“ - the first time we could feel the baby move around. Scientific advancements have given us deeper knowledge of the human body and how it works. We can see a human being at all of it stages of development from conception through the months of pregnancy, and of course every stage of human development that happens after that.  So we know life begins far, far earlier than the first movements we can feel or see from the outside. 

 

[TexasTiger 12,808]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

".....Friday’s ruling is a triumph for the doctrine of originalism, with significant consequences for a country with an increasingly diverse and tolerant population. “The version of American history you get from constraining your historical evidence to the documents originalists see as mythical gives you centuries of constitutional history when women and people of color were completely disenfranchised,” historian Jill Lepore said Friday. “And that’s the basis now for the continued denial of rights.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-rolls-back-right-inflames-divided-country/

This identity analysis isn’t necessary or even helpful. If you want to convince originalists and you have a strong originalist argument to make— and pro-choice folks have one if they’ll make it— then make it. Women weren’t forced to carry every pregnancy to term in common law. As limited in rights as they were, they still had a right to choice early in pregnancy.

[TexasTiger 12,808]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Up until the latter part of the 20th century, we didn’t have the technology to be able to see inside the womb. We didn’t have the ability to take cameras in and actually watch fertilization happen. We had no way of knowing what was going on in there. So the first proof that a living human being was in there was “quickening“ - the first time we could feel the baby move around. Scientific advancements have given us deeper knowledge of the human body and how it works. We can see a human being at all of it stages of development from conception through the months of pregnancy, and of course every stage of human development that happens after that.  So we know life begins far, far earlier than the first movements we can feel or see from the outside. 

 

Where life begins in a legal sense, apart from the mother, is viability. Judges at common law made that distinction for legal purposes. They understood impregnation. They distinguished a fertilized egg from a person for legal purposes.
 

The supposed originalist analysis these judges used to get you the outcome you wanted was that there was no longstanding recognized right to an abortion. That’s wrong. You claiming modern medicine informs us of things they didn’t know doesn’t support the analysis and framework on which Roe was overturned. 

[homersapien 11,353]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

This identity analysis isn’t necessary or even helpful. If you want to convince originalists and you have a strong originalist argument to make— and pro-choice folks have one if they’ll make it— then make it. Women weren’t forced to carry every pregnancy to term in common law. As limited in rights as they were, they still had a right to choice early in pregnancy.

I get the point regarding political focus, but I disagree about reviewing such related history as being unnecessary or unhelpful. 

Reviewing our history regarding individual rights is helpful when related rights are removed from any "identity" group (in this case women).

Maybe reviewing such a case is not strictly necessary for making an originalist argument regarding privacy and abortion rights, but such a review of history is always helpful to fully understand the implications of legal decisions that restrict fundamental basic rights. It provides additional context.

In other words, this is not just about abortion.  It's about individual freedoms.  They are all connected.  If one is destroyed, they are all threatened.

Reviewing our complete history helps us understand that.

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,808]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I disagree.  It is helpful.

Maybe reviewing such history is not strictly necessary for making an originalist argument regarding privacy and abortion rights, but such a review of history is always helpful to fully understand the implications of legal decisions that restrict fundamental basic rights. 

This is not just about abortion.  It's about individual freedoms.  They are all connected.  If one is destroyed, they are all threatened. Reviewing our history helps us understand that.

 

I don’t disagree with this broad statement. And it may be helpful in looking at other rights. But this argument on the abortion issue has moved no one not already supportive. The focus needs to be on attacking the argument that just resulted in women losing a fundamental right. In this case, it’s largely emoting.

[homersapien 11,353]

22 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t disagree with this broad statement. And it may be helpful in looking at other rights. But this argument on the abortion issue has moved no one not already supportive. The focus needs to be on attacking the argument that just resulted in women losing a fundamental right. In this case, it’s largely emoting.

I agree the argument is wrong, but IMO, the only way it can be "attacked" is by removing the people responsible for it. 

"Originalism" is nothing more than a rationale to reject any given unenumerated rights.  For them, any right not specifically mentioned in the constitution can be rejected.  Unenumerated rights and the 14 amendment be damned.

Bottom line, they do not recognize the right to privacy to begin with.  And you'll never convince them the right to an abortion can be justified using their own standard of "originalism", even if you are intellectually, logically and historically correct.

The only solution is to replace these judges with people who acknowledge the fundamental rights in question (autonomy, privacy) as valid according to the same constitution.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,353]

(This is not to say it isn't worthwhile to make the argument - and it's a good one.  There is a lot of intellectual satisfaction in hoisting these a**holes with their own "originalist" petard.)

It would also make for a excellent basis for a future court to overrule this decision.

Edited June 25, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,808]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I agree the argument is wrong, but IMO, the only way it can be "attacked" is by removing the people responsible for it. 

"Originalism" is nothing more than a rationale to reject any given unenumerated rights.  For them, any right not specifically mentioned in the constitution can be rejected.  Unenumerated rights and the 14 amendment be damned.

Bottom line, they do not recognize the right to privacy to begin with.  And you'll never convince them the right to an abortion can be justified using their own standard of "originalism", even if you are intellectually, logically and historically correct.

The only solution is to replace these judges with people who acknowledge the fundamental rights in question (autonomy, privacy) as valid according to the same constitution.

 

 

Whether their minds are changed or not, they probably developed their jurisprudence starting in law school. Law schools and law journals are where theories get challenged and minds may change. This is where future jurists form their thinking. 
 

Also, now that Roe’s overturned abortion laws will need to be challenged using a different argument not overtly inconsistent with the Court’s decision. 

[homersapien 11,353]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Whether their minds are changed or not, they probably developed their jurisprudence starting in law school. Law schools and law journals are where theories get challenged and minds may change. This is where future jurists form their thinking. 
 

Also, now that Roe’s overturned abortion laws will need to be challenged using a different argument not overtly inconsistent with the Court’s decision. 

This is going to continue to consume our politics for decades, which is a real shame since we had arrived at a stasis that was popularly supported.

I have arrived at the point where I think our political system is being overwhelmed by technology (facebook), ignorance, existential threats (like AGW and nuclear war).

We don't need this.

It's regressive and it will certainly increase poverty and hopelessness.

It may not even reduce the national abortion rate.  (Abortion is legal - if regulated - in all countries with the lowest abortion rates.)

It's sad for our country.  I am apprehensive regarding our future.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

I want to know why y’all are so upset about one’s own body and a right to privacy now, but at the same time so upset with people that didn’t want to get a Covid shot because.,..well shouldn’t we be entitled to a right to privacy when it comes to our own body. 
 

I don’t think they should have overturned it. Things to me were fine just the way they were and not an issue I think we should be spending so much time on. But it’s damn funny watching the hypocrisy come out in full force. 

[TexasTiger 12,808]

10 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I want to know why y’all are so upset about one’s own body and a right to privacy now, but at the same time so upset with people that didn’t want to get a Covid shot because.,..well shouldn’t we be entitled to a right to privacy when it comes to our own body. 
 

I don’t think they should have overturned it. Things to me were fine just the way they were and not an issue I think we should be spending so much time on. But it’s damn funny watching the hypocrisy come out in full force. 

A. Were you forced to get a Covid shot?

B. Have other immunizations actually been required and did you refuse them or feel very violated? 
 

C. Being forced to carry a baby to term is tantamount to a vaccination?