Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And there you go again. Abortion with restrictions has a lot of support. Even the MS Law has a 15 week clause in it. Almost no one  supports true non-restricted abortion. Americans are a sane people, by and large. They understand that reasonable, early ending of the pregnancy is okay. Only the true bat rappers want fertility laws. 

Exactly.  But there are people on this forum that apparently feel unless you are OK with everything up to and including partial birth abortion you are “restricting womens rights”. 

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

…..

And before you say "no, birth control isn't an abortifacient," I'll direct you to the majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. 

The opinion regarding Hobby Lobby was with regards to forcing an employer to pay for birth control, not outlawing it.  

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

…..

This is more about exerting direct control over women - particularly  poor or disadvantaged women - than it is about "improving the situation".

 

Ahh, you figured it out.  People aren’t really concerned with the murder of unborn children, it’s really just about controlling other people they don’t know, and don’t care about.  

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Excellent point.  This will ONLY affect the poor and disadvantaged.

Yes, because only poor people can have unplanned pregnancies.  Stereotype much?

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

So allowing a person to make decisions about their own body is "pushing centralized rules on everyone?

It’s the other body in the equation that you keep leaving out.  You know, the perfectly viable human babies that being murdered…..

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I think you missed the point.

It's not about how you feel about any given issue.  It's about your support of the legal basis Alito based his decision on.  That basis would also allow for making these things illegal. 

You have also explicitly supported state's ability negate or rescind such  unenumerated rights - as mentioned above -  by popular vote. 

Your personal position on any given issue is not really relevant.  Your support for Alito's legal basis is the issue here.

So, presumably, if a state did outlaw contraception, or interracial marriage, or homosexuality then you would have "no issue" with that either.   That would be the logical extension of your arguments.

 

No, you missed the point- I was asked my personal beliefs, to which I I replied what my personal beliefs were.   
 

Just because I said this should be a states rights issue does not carry over into every other court case that has ever existed.  The difference that the fans of abortion keep leaving out is the killing of another life.  
 

if abortion has the 70% approval that the “polls” say it does, then this should be a non issue.  However, the “polls” that are being misrepresented are not for completely unrestricted, full term avortion that the libs have been celebrating.   

[AUDub 11,155]

17 minutes ago, GoAU said:

The opinion regarding Hobby Lobby was with regards to forcing an employer to pay for birth control, not outlawing it.  

Correct! And on what grounds, you may ask?!

"The Hahn family, owners of Conestoga, and the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, said some of the mandated contraception prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman’s womb, which the plaintiffs equate with abortion."

[GoAU 1,600]

Just now, AUDub said:

Correct! And on what grounds, you may ask?!

"The Hahn family, owners of Conestoga, and the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, said some of the mandated contraception prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman’s womb, which the plaintiffs equate with abortion."

And outlawing birth control is nowhere near the same thing as making someone else pay for it.

[AUDub 11,155]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

And outlawing birth control is nowhere near the same thing as making someone else pay for it.

The point is that there's a legal fiction on the books wherein certain methods of birth control are abortion. If a state legislature passes a bill outlawing BC on those grounds, they theoretically don't even have to directly challenge Griswold. 

[AUDub 11,155]

45 minutes ago, GoAU said:

if abortion has the 70% approval that the “polls” say it does, then this should be a non issue.  However, the “polls” that are being misrepresented are not for completely unrestricted, full term avortion that the libs have been celebrating.   

Very few actually support that. Much less celebrate it. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,155]

Even many of the most ardent pro-lifers will generally allow some forms of exception for rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. 

That's part of what's so offensive about this Louisiana bill.

Then you have bills like Ohio's, which require reimplantation of an ectopically implanted embryo. A medical procedure that does not exist. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by AUDub

[GoAU 1,600]

33 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Very few actually support that. Much less celebrate it. 

Kind of like the zealots that you think want to ban birth control, gay marriage and interracial marriage?  

[GoAU 1,600]

54 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The point is that there's a legal fiction on the books wherein certain methods of birth control are abortion. If a state legislature passes a bill outlawing BC on those grounds, they theoretically don't even have to directly challenge Griswold. 

I think this is akin to saying since there are laws on the books banning drugs that the Jehovas Witnesses are going to make aspirin illegal.  
 

With very few exceptions (perhaps a small faction of the Catholic Church) the vast majority of those that oppose abortion strongly support birth control. 

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The distinction is that no states ever outlawed gay marriage.  They just didn't sanction it.  No one went to prison for holding a same-sex marriage.  It just wasn't granted legal status.

 

That's a distinction without a difference. 

If something is not granted legal status it's "outlawed" by definition. 

Whatever penalty might be in place for homosexuals attempting to get married - or simply trying to live as id they were legally married couple is not really relevant.

Not having access to a legally valid marriage is the penalty or punishment.

Regardless, if you are suggesting a state now has the right to reverse the law to return to not granting legal status, you are simply proving our point - this potential ruling abortion has the legal potential to undermine a wide spectrum of legal rights that have been established - and accepted - over the last 50 years.

Hopefully it's going to generate a lot of political backlash directed to the Party of Trump authoritarianism. Backlash that will reverse the authoritarian, theocratic  charge supported by republican judges and the people who put them there. 

And hopefully that backlash will be enduring.

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Exactly.  But there are people on this forum that apparently feel unless you are OK with everything up to and including partial birth abortion you are “restricting womens rights”. 

 

I must have missed that.  Whom are you referring to?

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Ahh, you figured it out.  People aren’t really concerned with the murder of unborn children, it’s really just about controlling other people they don’t know, and don’t care about.  

Yes, because only poor people can have unplanned pregnancies.  Stereotype much?

 

That's a classical "begging the question" gambit - a logical fallacy.

But the fact is this ruling will have exactly that effect.  In many - if not most of - these cases the basic reason the woman is seeking an abortion is because she literally cannot afford - or isn't able to carry the pregnancy to term.  It's likely she can't afford the expense or time to travel hundreds or miles for a legal abortion.

And I have yet to see much from the "pro life"  crowd to address it or even acknowledge it, much propose action to address it. So, I would say that it is your group that isn't really concerned with the unborn or born children.

Seems to me ya'll are far more concerned with visiting religious-based punishment on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society.

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

Yes, because only poor people can have unplanned pregnancies.  Stereotype much?

That is totally irrelevant to the issue on the table, which is how these state bans will effect poor people. 

It's obvious that rich people won't have a problem with traveling hundreds of miles to obtain a legal abortion. Hell they can probably even take the time off from work.   That has nothing to do with how this impact the most vulnerable.

(And I'd cut back on the barbs until you at least improve your game.  That response was pretty stupid.)

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,977]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

There already are laws telling men what they can and cannot do with their sperm.  More than one.  Men can't do anything with their sperm that poses an unwanted or harmful externality to another human being.

You can't urinate on people walking down the street from your balcony either, but that isn't what I'm suggesting and you know that.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

It’s the other body in the equation that you keep leaving out.  You know, the perfectly viable human babies that being murdered…..

This is yet another example of "begging the question"

You are forcing your religious beliefs into the debate- thus trying to ending. (This is integral part of the problem IMO - it heads off the possibility of compromise when one side is religiously motivated.)

Otherwise, a zygote, blastophere, even a fetus aren't viable until about 24  weeks. 

Of course there is no scientific consensus on exactly where in the process "life" actually begins. a

I am not sure science is even capable of determining it. But we do have a standard of when death occurs (brain ceases to function), so presumably, one might look into brain development and/or higher brain function.   Some cultures - including our own - have used the first "quickening" as an indicator.

One think for sure, the mother is typically living individual with the same right of autonomy over their own bodies  as everyone else, which should include privacy from government intrusion in the matter.

(This is not to say regulatory compromise should not be sought for popular reasons, such as most advanced European countries have done in order to get past such a complicated moral / religious / personal autonomy  dilemma.) 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Then you have bills like Ohio's, which require reimplantation of an ectopically implanted embryo. A medical procedure that does not exist. 

Haven't heard about that!

[AU9377 4,977]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

Exactly.  But there are people on this forum that apparently feel unless you are OK with everything up to and including partial birth abortion you are “restricting womens rights”. 

The opinion regarding Hobby Lobby was with regards to forcing an employer to pay for birth control, not outlawing it.  

Ahh, you figured it out.  People aren’t really concerned with the murder of unborn children, it’s really just about controlling other people they don’t know, and don’t care about.  

Yes, because only poor people can have unplanned pregnancies.  Stereotype much?

It’s the other body in the equation that you keep leaving out.  You know, the perfectly viable human babies that being murdered…..

No, you missed the point- I was asked my personal beliefs, to which I I replied what my personal beliefs were.   
 

Just because I said this should be a states rights issue does not carry over into every other court case that has ever existed.  The difference that the fans of abortion keep leaving out is the killing of another life.  
 

if abortion has the 70% approval that the “polls” say it does, then this should be a non issue.  However, the “polls” that are being misrepresented are not for completely unrestricted, full term avortion that the libs have been celebrating.   

I once thought that enough decency existed to prevent state legislatures from passing draconian legislation.  I no long believe that.  The examples below are of bills in state legislatures around the country that simply go too far.

https://thegrio.com/2021/05/27/pennsylvania-lawmakers-pass-miscarriage-bill/

https://www.romper.com/p/how-sb-8-will-affect-women-who-miscarry-in-texas-62938

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/kansas-may-force-doctors-to-report-womens-miscarriages-to-the-state-health-department-ec6433186c7e/

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Kind of like the zealots that you think want to ban birth control, gay marriage and interracial marriage?  

There are undoubtedly some out there.  Probably a lot more when considering gay marriage and interracial marriage separately.

Of course the actual  point is, this (potential) ruling sets the legal precedent for banning any right based on the same legal basis established in the Roe v. Wade ruling. 

This is regardless of what Alito says - he can't stop other judges from using the same legal basis (precedent)  and applying it to gay marriage - or anything else - as long as those rights are based on the same legal basis that allowed for Roe v. Wade.

The unenumerated right of personal privacy from the government - or the autonomy of a woman over her own body - no longer exists. 

My understanding is the right of homosexuals to marry or the right of anyone to marry someone of another "race" are based on the same thing as Roe v. Wade, so they are just as vulnerable legally as Roe v. Wade.

This is why so many of us are concerned.  It's not just abortion rights.  This has the potential to eliminate a lot of individual rights that enjoy popular support. 

(One can only hope Republicans will try to overreach, as if overturning Roe. v. Wade is not enough.)

Meanwhile, we can just enjoy the irony that the same "conservative" party - who traditionally opposed governmental overreach into our personal lives  - would overturn what was essentially a right of privacy from the government in the matter of reproduction.

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

That's a classical "begging the question" gambit - a logical fallacy.

But the fact is this ruling will have exactly that effect.  In many - if not most of - these cases the basic reason the woman is seeking an abortion is because she literally cannot afford - or isn't able to carry the pregnancy to term.  It's likely she can't afford the expense or time to travel hundreds or miles for a legal abortion.

And I have yet to see much from the "pro life"  crowd to address it or even acknowledge it, much propose action to address it. So, I would say that it is your group that isn't really concerned with the unborn or born children.

Seems to me ya'll are far more concerned with visiting religious-based punishment on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society.

 

 

We both know there are a large percentage of abortions that are a matter of convenience, where the mothers don’t want their lives impacted by the results of their decisions.   

10 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I once thought that enough decency existed to prevent state legislatures from passing draconian legislation.  I no long believe that.  The examples below are of bills in state legislatures around the country that simply go too far.

https://thegrio.com/2021/05/27/pennsylvania-lawmakers-pass-miscarriage-bill/

https://www.romper.com/p/how-sb-8-will-affect-women-who-miscarry-in-texas-62938

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/kansas-may-force-doctors-to-report-womens-miscarriages-to-the-state-health-department-ec6433186c7e/

Stupid bills get introduced all the time without any chance of it becoming law.  Happens around the 2A all the time, welcome to the party on the stupid law introduction train.  

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is yet another example of "begging the question"

You are forcing your religious beliefs into the debate- thus trying to ending. (This is integral part of the problem IMO - it heads off the possibility of compromise when one side is religiously motivated.)

Otherwise, a zygote, blastophere, even a fetus aren't viable until about 24  weeks. 

Of course there is no scientific consensus on exactly where in the process "life" actually begins. a

I am not sure science is even capable of determining it. But we do have a standard of when death occurs (brain ceases to function), so presumably, one might look into brain development and/or higher brain function.   Some cultures - including our own - have used the first "quickening" as an indicator.

One think for sure, the mother is typically living individual with the same right of autonomy over their own bodies  as everyone else, which should include privacy from government intrusion in the matter.

(This is not to say regulatory compromise should not be sought for popular reasons, such as most advanced European countries have done in order to get past such a complicated moral / religious / personal autonomy  dilemma.) 

 

I try very hard to leave religious views out of politics.  However, the difficulty in determining the beginning of life is extremely difficult.  However, valuing life can be based on morality rather then religion.   They frequently overlap, but I am sure there are plenty of people that don’t have religious beliefs, but have a sense of morals.  A lot of opposition to abortion started picking up steam as the abortions got later in later in the  pregnancy.  Neither side is very interested in meeting in the middle.  This is why I think rendering this to the states at least allows the decisions to be made closer to those impacted.  

[homersapien 11,393]

28 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I once thought that enough decency existed to prevent state legislatures from passing draconian legislation.  I no long believe that.  The examples below are of bills in state legislatures around the country that simply go too far.

https://thegrio.com/2021/05/27/pennsylvania-lawmakers-pass-miscarriage-bill/

https://www.romper.com/p/how-sb-8-will-affect-women-who-miscarry-in-texas-62938

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/kansas-may-force-doctors-to-report-womens-miscarriages-to-the-state-health-department-ec6433186c7e/

In a past debate on abortion I joked about the formation of "Pregnancy Police".

It's no longer funny.  And considering 10-20% of all pregnancies (10-20% of known pregnancies) end in a miscarriage, that's a lot of cases to investigate.

I wonder how long it will be for some of these states to require pregnant women to register and/or require Doctors to report pregnancies?

[homersapien 11,393]

13 minutes ago, GoAU said:

We both know there are a large percentage of abortions that are a matter of convenience, where the mothers don’t want their lives impacted by the results of their decisions. 

 

So?

It's not for you or me - or anyone else - to judge the validity of what goes into her ultimate decision.  It's not our business, nor is it the government's.

All countries who have - or had - legal abortions have imposed restrictions as to timing etc. but to make judgements on a woman's motivations clearly qualifies as subjugation of women.  What would you have them do? Testify at an inquiry?  Maybe submit an affidavit?

What a misogynist culture we are becoming.  

[alexava 6,973]

This is the ugliest of politics. I hate that it has to be constantly hashed out decade after decades. I don’t like the arguments either side puts up. But I may never be considered a Republican because I remain pro choice. I think deep down many Republicans don’t give a s*** they just feel like this is how they are supposed to react to fit in. I don’t understand how or why most pro lifers seek out sadness. With some exceptions, abortion only affects you if you let it.
      I won’t even get started on the hypocrisy democrats show when arguing choice. 

[homersapien 11,393]

30 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I try very hard to leave religious views out of politics.  However, the difficulty in determining the beginning of life is extremely difficult.  However, valuing life can be based on morality rather then religion.   They frequently overlap, but I am sure there are plenty of people that don’t have religious beliefs, but have a sense of morals.  A lot of opposition to abortion started picking up steam as the abortions got later in later in the  pregnancy.  Neither side is very interested in meeting in the middle.  This is why I think rendering this to the states at least allows the decisions to be made closer to those impacted.  

Not as long as you adhere to the belief life begins at conception, and apply that (as your religious belief). 

Let's not pretend there is even a possibility of a compromise that would allow for an abortion under any circumstances if such a religious belief holds sway.

Many or the laws I've seen proposed are radical.  I don't see room for compromise.

As I have said, this is more about imposing a religious belief on women than it is improving lives of women or children.

[GoAU 1,600]

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So?

It's not for you or me - or anyone else - to judge the validity of what goes into her ultimate decision.  It's not our business, nor is it the government's.

All countries who have - or had - legal abortions have imposed restrictions as to timing etc. but to make judgements on a woman's motivations clearly qualifies as subjugation of women.  What would you have them do? Testify at an inquiry?  Maybe submit an affidavit?

What a misogynist culture we are becoming.  

I brought that up only because you made it sound earlier as did the economic ability to support the baby earlier was a significant rationale for abortion.  Here you made your earlier post irrelevant.  If the motivation doesn’t matter, why attempt to justify it at all?  Just say that you support abortion at any time and for any (or no) reason at all?   

47 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not as long as you adhere to the belief life begins at conception, and apply that (as your religious belief). 

Let's not pretend there is even a possibility of a compromise that would allow for an abortion under any circumstances if such a religious belief holds sway.

Many or the laws I've seen proposed are radical.  I don't see room for compromise.

As I have said, this is more about imposing a religious belief on women than it is improving lives of women or children.

My point is that this can just as easily be a scientific belief as a religious belief.  My religious beliefs, while of significant importance to me, should have no bearing on legislation. 
 

I absolutely agree with you that compromise will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to find.  Defining the beginning of life is the critical part of this conversation. This is why I think the best way to handle it is at a local (state) level where people can vote on the issues that affect them.  

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I once thought that enough decency existed to prevent state legislatures from passing draconian legislation.  I no long believe that.  The examples below are of bills in state legislatures around the country that simply go too far.

https://thegrio.com/2021/05/27/pennsylvania-lawmakers-pass-miscarriage-bill/

https://www.romper.com/p/how-sb-8-will-affect-women-who-miscarry-in-texas-62938

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/kansas-may-force-doctors-to-report-womens-miscarriages-to-the-state-health-department-ec6433186c7e/

Assuming those are accurate representations of the laws (which could be a stretch given the obvious bias of the sources) I would disagree with all three of those laws.  However, disagreeing with those laws wouldn’t mean I would have to support abortion, in particular later term abortions.  

[AUDub 11,155]

8 hours ago, GoAU said:

Kind of like the zealots that you think want to ban birth control,

I like how I linked a bill that could do just that and you keep blithely ignoring it. 

8 hours ago, GoAU said:

gay marriage and

I'd suggest going back and reading Alito and Thomas' dissents over Obergefell, if you want to see zealotry.