Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (4 Viewers)

[Lursa]

As far as what? A woman has a right to an abortion because she could possibly suffer negative consequences if forced to carry a pregnancy to term? No, she doesn’t have that right. Statutorily, a hospital would be required to render lifesaving emergency care, but women don’t have a right to abortions unconditionally.

A right to medical care to protect her life and health. Deaths and health damage from a pregnancy cannot be predicted or prevented.

A right to consent to her own reproductive choices. 9th Amendment right:

• right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]

You'll see the right to abortion at the top of that list...Dobbs overturned that. But otherwise, that's a list of recognized 9th A rights.​

Since the unborn has NO federal legal status to protect...what grounds would the govt have to deny her an abortion?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'unconditionally' but there are some states with no restrictions on 'when" a woman can have an abortion. The only condition I can think of is a federal law against partial birth abortion. But there is no federal law or control over 'when' a woman can have an abortion...regarding either reason or timeframe. If you disagree...please provide it.

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)

Harris v. McRae

supreme.justia.com

What point specifically are you using this to make?

Yeah, and I quoted the Court’s specific language on that point. The “state’s interest” is preventing the mother from killing her fetus. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

That's the wording but it does not state what the state's interest is. Where is the "why?" Why is that in the states' interest?

And btw, once you focus on demanding women carry a pregnancy at the behest of the state...that's involuntary servitude. I'm all for a challenge case that tries to use this as a reason. The 13th Amendment has been suggested by judges before as a foundation for a right to abortion. It was not considered in RvW (RvW was not perfect by any means.) Please explain what right the state has to demand a woman carry a pregnancy in "their" interests?

And so it's not clear...and no one has ever made it clear. IMO that's intentional...but the sentence makes a statement...it does not define what that interest is.

Jeebus. What is the state’s interest in preventing any human being from killing another one? Here it is--again:


Roe v. Wade, p. 154

I mean, the majority opinion doesn't specifically say why people killing other people or potential people is a state concern, but the justices probably assumed that anyone reading their opinion would possess a modicum of common sense.

See above. All you're doing is making an appeal to authority. And Dobbs supersedes RvW...yes or no?

Dobbs enables states to allow women/their Drs to kill her unborn with no due process. No restrictions are listed. Yes or no?

So...you might as well stop using RvW, right?

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed your argument that bodily autonomy is EVERYTHING is nonsense, and I pointed out that Roe only excluded state interests for the First Trimester. Beyond that point, Roe supports my position on bodily autonomy and privacy rights (that they don't outweigh state interests), not yours:


Roe v. Wage, p. 153

Never said bodily autonomy was unlimited. No right is.

See above: why are you using RvW?

The same one it's been from the beginning: a woman does not have an unconditional right to terminate her pregnancy.

Federally, she pretty much does. Dobbs however enables the states to set some.

A woman has rights such as to life, due process, bodily autonomy, and to not be used in involuntary servitude to the state. The states can place restrictions on abortion but they cannot create laws that violate a woman's Const. rights or federal laws. That's stated in the Supremacy Clause.

Why do you think that no states have criminalized having abortions, only providing them? A woman can still perform her own abortion, usually with pills, or drive to another state and have one. In both cases, she faces no criminal charges. Can she go to another state, intentionally kill her baby or toddle or teen, return home and not face criminal charges? Yes or no?

 

[Lursa]

But the point is murder is considered to be a crime against human beings. Historically, that would have been legal persons. Fetal homicide laws evolved that understanding, attaching an additional murder or manslaughter count for killing a fetus or embryo.

If a pregnant woman from TX or MO or ID, where most abortions are banned, drives to another state and has an abortion...why isnt she charged with murder then? She's not even charged with homicide. How do you explain your "point?"

IMO your attempts at using the definition of a single word, 'murder,' isnt really going to go the distance and maybe you should try something with more substance? (Just a polite suggestion.)

 

[Ahlevah]

Where's my simple "yes o no" when I've asked? You dont bother.

When has that--a simple "yes or no"--happened?

Please explain why the distinction "you choose to make" re: the word "murder" makes a difference to the abortion issue? When it's clear that each time, abortion is explicitly exempted?

Because, like I already explained, "murder" and "manslaughter" are words that historically were reserved only for "persons" or "people." What is the crime? The taking of a human life. What is the state interest? Preventing the taking of a human life. The hypocrisy is making a distinction in the law between a killing where it's the mother's idea and that of another, or whether the killing occurs in utero or not. I don't make the assumption that simply because the law chooses not to recognize an act as criminal it shouldn't be.

It's not hypocrisy. The 14th Amendment makes it clear the unborn are not persons. And federal law, the U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant, based on that is for our legislators as guidance.

I'm not claiming a fetus is legally a person. If that's your rebuttal, you're attacking another straw. My claim is there comes a point at which a human fetus should be protected by law due to the state's interest in protecting life or, in the words of Roe, "potential life."

Federally, it's a fetal homicide law and the words 'murder," "person" (for the unborn) are not mentioned and no rights are recognized for the unborn? Please answer what's the hypocrisy?

Okay, I already explained to you that the federal law specifically references criminal statutes regarding murder and manslaughter:

If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/108th-congress/house-report/420/1

So when you say "the words 'murder,' 'person' (for the unborn) are not mentioned," you're being disingenuous. It's a distinction without a difference, glaringly so when the "person" is defined in the law as an "unborn child."

 

[Ahlevah]

Dobbs is consistent with federal law and did not recognize rights for the unborn or as persons. Right?

As far as I know, in federal law "persons" are still defined as people who've been born, but, as I said, I'm not disputing that. Would you agree that the law defines the 'unborn child" as a "human being," especially since I just gave you the language from the statute verbatim? Or are you going to deny that, too?

Not at all...you just dont want to face legal reality.

I am perfectly fine with letting states do their own thing on this issue. I don't view abortion as a federal concern.

I dont care...you can do so and I will continue to respond to your posts if I want to, and when they continue to dismantle your arguments...you wont be able to refute them. It's only hiding and that's up to you. I often use other people's posts to make arguments from.

Well, if I've disputed them four or five times to no avail, don't be surprised when I stop responding. It's nothing personal. I simply have a limited amount of time to waste confronting the pro-abortion faithful.

So...the nature of the crime is destroying something of value to someone else. The crime is perpetuated against the woman...it's her loss, or her family if she dies also, and their loss. See? A clear, civil answer.

So assume she attempts to abort her fetus, to her horror it's born alive, and then she successfully kills it. Who would be the wiser? I mean, other than the baby that just a few moments ago wasn't legally a "person," who's it going to hurt? What is the state's interest here? The answers should be obvious, and they're not based on a simple legal distinction.

What point are you trying to make here?

I have one--one--overriding point, which I've made repeatedly: there is no constitutional right to unconditionally kill a fetus.

Without googling, I think that the Laci and Connor's law is the CA state statute, not federal. I could be wrong.

Yeah, you are--wrong, that is:

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004’’ or ‘‘Laci and Conner’s Law’’ .SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.(a) IN GENERAL.—Title 18, United States Code, is amended

https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1997/text

 

[Lursa]

When has that--a simple "yes or no"--happened?



Because, like I already explained, "murder" and "manslaughter" are words that historically were reserved only for "persons" or "people." What is the crime? The taking of a human life. What is the state interest? Preventing the taking of a human life. The hypocrisy is making a distinction in the law between a killing where it's the mother's idea and that of another, or whether the killing occurs in utero or not. I don't make the assumption that simply because the law chooses not to recognize an act as criminal it shouldn't be.

This is all just repeating yourself. Why? I addressed why it wasnt hypocritical but you refuse to accept the reality is that it's about her choice and value of the pregnancy.

If she wants it, it's a crime to take it from her. Doesnt matter if it's a human or not. It's a crime to take it. If you want to dispute that 'murder' only applies to humans...fine but it doesnt change the legal STATUS of the human. Which is nothing federally.

If she doesnt, then she is allowed to dispose of it, legally, based on HER consent and value. So it's not a crime to dispose of what's hers. Is it?

I'm not claiming a fetus is legally a person. If that's your rebuttal, you're attacking another straw. My claim is there comes a point at which a human fetus should be protected by law due to the state's interest in protecting life or, in the words of Roe, "potential life."

So what else is there? There is no "interim" legal status.

And where and why would the state's interest in potential life (with no legal status) outweigh a woman's Const rights to life, liberty, due process, bodily autonomy, etc. ?

And again...you using that phrase is no longer valid. Remember? Roe is no more. Is it used in the Fetal Homicide Law? Quoted section?

So if you cant give me a specific justification for superseding women's lives and health and self-determination for something with no legal status...please stop using it.

Okay, I already explained to you that the federal law specifically references criminal statutes regarding murder and manslaughter:

See above

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/108th-congress/house-report/420/1

So when you say "the words 'murder,' 'person' (for the unborn) are not mentioned," you're being disingenuous. It's a distinction without a difference, glaringly so when the "person" is defined in the law as an "unborn child."

No, I'm not. Esp since you keep insisting that "murder" has a very very specific meaning. Now you're using it hypocritically. We can kill legally, like in self-defense. That's called homicide. (As one example). And it does have a distinction there, right?

From your cited text: "It would be contradictory to enact a “fetal homicide law” included in federal criminal statutes that didn’t include an offense such as murder or manslaughter. Since this particular law doesn’t do that, it’s not. This law specifically references the same federal murder and manslaughter statutes that would apply to any “person,”" link​

So it still doesnt call it murder. The title proves it...as do all the references to the law. It's called" fetal homicide". It is however, using the same legal foundation as for murder and manslaughter "but ISNT" those things. It specifically calls out that it isnt a person.

Again...your point is semantic. No one's denying it's a crime. But you still seem to be pushing it as evidence of some legal status...which it does not have.

 

[Lursa]

As far as I know, in federal law "persons" are still defined as people who've been born, but, as I said, I'm not disputing that. Would you agree that the law defines the 'unborn child" as a "human being," especially since I just gave you the language from the statute verbatim? Or are you going to deny that, too?

Why would the wording of a statute supersede the federal law? What it says in that statute is all a matter of drawing comparisons to get the maximum penalties for something they recognize as having no legal status. Just like "referencing" murder and manslaughter laws.

What is the point of your semantic issue here?

I am perfectly fine with letting states do their own thing on this issue. I don't view abortion as a federal concern.

All of a sudden, this? After all that??? When others have gone on and on about this and then been confronted with the real consequences of Dobbs, and stating what you just did, this has been my response:

"You absolutely do not believe that murdering babies is a states' rights issue."​

Is this similar to your opinion...yes? If not, please explain?

So assume she attempts to abort her fetus, to her horror it's born alive, and then she successfully kills it. Who would be the wiser? I mean, other than the baby that just a few moments ago wasn't legally a "person," who's it going to hurt? What is the state's interest here? The answers should be obvious, and they're not based on a simple legal distinction.

There are millions of scenarios for all laws. "Who would be the wiser" applies to breaking all laws. You are trying to hard to contrive something. I'll address it realistically. Realistically, it doesnt happen with pills. Realistically, a viable fetus is too large to remove whole without labor or dismembering so again...not happening. If it did, she's not obligated to do anything but keep it "comfortable" until it expires naturally.

These are the current laws regarding such intentional births of babies born with no chance of survival. It's the parents' choice, for extreme measures or palliative care.

I have one--one--overriding point, which I've made repeatedly: there is no constitutional right to unconditionally kill a fetus.

Why does there have to be? Who ever claimed there was? However under Dobbs, for a pregnant woman there seems to be that, exactly, in practice. Right?

There's no const right to unconditionally kill a cow either. Do we need one? Or do our laws cover the many angles involved?

 

[Ahlevah]

This is all just repeating yourself. Why?

Good question, because you still won’t acknowledge the fact that under the federal fetal homicide statute intentionally killing an “unborn child “ can be classified as murder or manslaughter.

I addressed why it wasnt hypocritical but you refuse to accept the reality is that it's about her choice and value of the pregnancy.

No, it is. But I’m spinning my wheels here, and the Dodgers are playing the Braves on Fox shortly. Maybe I’ll be back later, maybe not.

 

[Ahlevah]

No, it is. But I’m spinning my wheels here, and the Dodgers are playing the Braves on Fox shortly. Maybe I’ll be back later, maybe not.

It’s in a rain delay.

 

[Lursa]

Good question, because you still won’t acknowledge the fact that under the federal fetal homicide statute intentionally killing an “unborn child “ can be classified as murder or manslaughter.

No...it specifically says it can "reference" the same statutes. This is the 3rd time I've pointed this out to you. And it even explains why...because in order to drive for maximum penalties, it has to over come the fact that the unborn has no legal status, no 'value' on it's own on which to base the harsher penalties.

It's similar to when a theft can be a misdemeanor or a felony depending on how much $$ value the stolen items had. Get it?

No, it is. But I’m spinning my wheels here, and the Dodgers are playing the Braves on Fox shortly. Maybe I’ll be back later, maybe not.

You are only doing so because you refuse to evaluate the actual meaning of what a crime is and isnt. And that's based on the legal status of the unborn. It has none, so the value is based on the woman, not the unborn. If she values it...it's a crime to take it from her. If she doesnt, she has the right to destroy it. And now, Dobbs has made that clear, federally. If states want to impose restrictions on that, they can to some extent.

But she can still go to another state and have it killed. Why isnt she arrested for doing that when she returns to her state of residence? Can she do that with her baby or toddler or teen?

 

[Ahlevah]

No...it specifically says it can "reference" the same statutes. This is the 3rd time I've pointed this out to you. And it even explains why...because in order to drive for maximum penalties, it has to over come the fact that the unborn has no legal status, no 'value' on it's own on which to base the harsher penalties.

Now you’re engaging in ever so much twaddle. You got called out for your disingenuousness regarding the language in the statute, and continue to deny the obvious intent of the law even in the face of its clear language. For anyone else who missed it the first time, here it is again:

If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/108th-congress/house-report/420/1

These are criminal homicide statutes, m’am.

It's similar to when a theft can be a misdemeanor or a felony depending on how much $$ value the stolen items had. Get it?

I get that murder and manslaughter, even when dealing with a human being that some here believe has no more moral worth than a pet dog, is a felony.

You are only doing so because you refuse to evaluate the actual meaning of what a crime is and isnt. And that's based on the legal status of the unborn. It has none, so the value is based on the woman, not the unborn. If she values it...it's a crime to take it from her. If she doesnt, she has the right to destroy it. And now, Dobbs has made that clear, federally. If states want to impose restrictions on that, they can to some extent.

And you refuse to acknowledge a simple truth: there is no constitutional right to kill a fetus. As far as Dobbs goes, what happened to the presumed religious zealots on SCOTUS who were going to impose their religions morals on everybody? Didn’t happen, did it? The sky didn’t fall because Roe v. Wade was overturned, did it? On the question of abortion, I have my own set of ethics, and I can at least attempt to divorce those from the law. I mean, I don’t care for the practice, but, as I said, it’s not a federal issue.

But she can still go to another state and have it killed. Why isnt she arrested for doing that when she returns to her state of residence? Can she do that with her baby or toddler or teen?

Because people have the right to travel across state lines, and there is no federal law criminalizing crossing state lines in order to procure an abortion. At least, that’s my understanding. Also, states would find it problematic to try people for acts committed outside of their political jurisdictions, although I’m sure that might not stop some of them from attempting to do it. Also, I think the general idea is to prevent the practice from occurring, not to stuff our jails and prisons with women who kill their babies, of which there are millions. We probably would have a revolution if we tried. Too many people think if a baby is in a uterus it isn’t human. It’s like a dog or alien.

 

[Ahlevah]

All of a sudden, this? After all that??? When others have gone on and on about this and then been confronted with the real consequences of Dobbs, and stating what you just did, this has been my response:

"You absolutely do not believe that murdering babies is a states' rights issue."​

Is this similar to your opinion...yes? If not, please explain?

As I said, I don’t think abortion is a federal issue. It’s highly contentious, just as slavery was, but at least with slavery we fought a civil war and passed a constitutional amendment banning the practice. Even then it wasn’t really settled for another century. In some ways blacks were still de facto slaves in some areas of the country, denied the full rights of citizenship promised them under our constitution.

Bedsides being a rationalist, I’m also a realist. We don’t live in a monolithic one man, one vote democracy. We live in a federal republic, bound by certain shared values and traditions. But we don’t all think alike. It’s a diverse country. I left California decades ago, where I was born and raised and spent half my life, with a central reason being the state’s liberal politics.

So my suggestion to any woman who thinks she has a right to an abortion is this: unless she wants to start a revolution or work to pass a constitutional amendment enumerating a right for her to kill her unborn baby, she should probably find a state more to her liking—like I did.

 

[Ahlevah]

False! Fetal homicide laws do not establish fetal personhood or rights.

You’re attacking the same straw @Lursa did. I distinguish between “personhood” as a legal concept and the state interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being, or, in the case the federal Laci and Conner Protection of Unborn Children Act, the characterization of the killing of an “unborn child” as murder or manslaughter.

If they did, abortion would be cosidered a criminal offense and not allowed. Yet, a woman may still have an abortion without due process in most states.

Haven’t you been keeping up with current events? In some states abortion is considered a criminal offense, although the emphasis is on holding the provider accountable, not the pregnant woman.

And if she happens to be pregnant, that should still be considered ONE murder.

That’s an opinion. How about making an actual argument, like “Her fetus isn’t a human being. It’s more like a dog—or an alien, an ugly alien at that, not worthy of legal protections.”

THat's one reason why fetal homicide laws are absurd. They are alos what happens when people let an emotional knee jerk reaction override reason.

I think there’s a realization that simply being in a uterus doesn’t make a human life not worthy of legal protections. This is one reason Trump and not Kamala is president.

The crime is against the pregnant woman. The law establishes punishment for that crime. The unborn is collateral damage.

“Collateral damage,” eh? Is that how Democrats are planning on winning future elections? Or are they going the dog route?

Connor's Law was the first.

No, that’s false. That law wasn’t enacted until 2004. Fetal homicide laws have existed since Minnesota first enacted one in 1986, which recognized the unborn child as a separate victim and not the mother’s property, like a pet gerbil.

Sec. 609.2663 MN Statutes

Regardless, they are all illogical and do not prohibit or prosecute abortion. They apply in cases of a violent crime committed against the pregnant woman. Not for a crime against the unborn. And since federal law does not recognize fetal personhood, there shouldn't be any criminal charge related to the unborn.

No, these laws are perfectly logical, because they recognize the existence of another, separate human life. What’s illogical is to declare that life unconditionally not worthy of legal protection only because it’s the mother’s idea to kill it.

 

[Gordy327]

You’re attacking the same straw @Lursa did. I distinguish between “personhood” as a legal concept and the state interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being, or, in the case the federal Laci and Conner Protection of Unborn Children Act, the characterization of the killing of an “unborn child” as murder or manslaughter.

What you distinguish is irrelevant. It's how the law distinguishes something which matters. The law distinguishes personhood, which the unborn lack. Fetal homicide laws apply when harm is inflicted against the woman. The fetus is collateral.

Haven’t you been keeping up with current events? In some states abortion is considered a criminal offense, although the emphasis is on holding the provider accountable, not the pregnant woman.

That has already been established. In other words, a woman may still have an abortion without legal repercussion. An abortion provider may be charged. Obviously, such laws are meant to prohibit abortion in a roundabout way by targeting providers rather than the woman herself. But the woman may still have an abortion.

That’s an opinion. How about making an actual argument, like “Her fetus isn’t a human being. It’s more like a dog—or an alien, an ugly alien at that, not worthy of legal protections.”

The actual argument is, the fetus is not a legal person with rights, unlike the pregnant woman who is and has rights and autonomy. Therefore, the fetus is not entitled to legal protections. As far as the law is concerned, it is a non-entity. I can also make rational arguments using the 4th, 6th, and 13th Amendments. @Lursa has already touched on those. How about you make an actual rational argument why abortion should be restricted! "Human being" doesn't cut it, ad that is a scientific designation and not a legal one. And the fetus is more akin to a parasite or tumor than a dog/alien, scientifically speaking.

I think there’s a realization that simply being in a uterus doesn’t make a human life not worthy of legal protections. This is one reason Trump and not Kamala is president.

What makes it worthy from a legal standpoint?

“Collateral damage,” eh? Is that how Democrats are planning on winning future elections? Or are they going the dog route?

I don't care what democrats plan politically. That's not the issue or discussion here!

No, that’s false. That law wasn’t enacted until 2004. Fetal homicide laws have existed since Minnesota first enacted one in 1986, which recognized the unborn child as a separate victim and not the mother’s property, like a pet gerbil.

Still an absurd law regardless and without legal justification.

No, these laws are perfectly logical, because they recognize the existence of another, separate human life. What’s illogical is to declare that life unconditionally not worthy of legal protection only because it’s the mother’s idea to kill it.

Merely your opinion, especially given there is no legal support of that.

 

[Lursa]

Now you’re engaging in ever so much twaddle. You got called out for your disingenuousness regarding the language in the statute, and continue to deny the obvious intent of the law even in the face of its clear language. For anyone else who missed it the first time, here it is again:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/108th-congress/house-report/420/1

These are criminal homicide statutes, m’am.

Not at all dishonest. Yes...that IS the intent of the statute...to charge fetal homicide "like" murder...I've never denied that...but they had to word it that way for the reasons I gave you. Because of the actual (lack of) legal status of the unborn. Why are you so offended by a legal reality?

And that (lack of) legal status of the unborn doesnt change to "closer to" personhood because of fetal homicide laws. Fetal homicide laws dont confer any legal status on the unborn...yet that seems to be what you want

And yes they are criminal statutes...when did I ever dent that? You were the one focused on the use of "murder."

I get that murder and manslaughter, even when dealing with a human being that some here believe has no more moral worth than a pet dog, is a felony.

You are still hung up on specific words. You are offended that the word murder is legally used for people but not the unborn.. Me? I dont care, it has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. You are letting your feelings steer your posts.

And you refuse to acknowledge a simple truth: there is no constitutional right to kill a fetus.

I have never said there is...yet you keep repeating that. Why? Quote where I've written that?

The reality is...Dobbs does not protect the unborn, at all. It does allow the states to create some restrictions.

As far as Dobbs goes, what happened to the presumed religious zealots on SCOTUS who were going to impose their religions morals on everybody? Didn’t happen, did it? The sky didn’t fall because Roe v. Wade was overturned, did it? On the question of abortion, I have my own set of ethics, and I can at least attempt to divorce those from the law. I mean, I don’t care for the practice, but, as I said,

??

it’s not a federal issue.

Well it is. Re: the Supremacy Clause. But within that, states can determine restrictions on abortion. Right?

 

[Lursa]

Because people have the right to travel across state lines, and there is no federal law criminalizing crossing state lines in order to procure an abortion. At least, that’s my understanding.

?? People have the right to cross state lines but still get charged with murdering their kids in other states. Right? But not their unborn.

Also, states would find it problematic to try people for acts committed outside of their political jurisdictions, although I’m sure that might not stop some of them from attempting to do it. Also, I think the general idea is to prevent the practice from occurring, not to stuff our jails and prisons with women who kill their babies, of which there are millions. We probably would have a revolution if we tried. Too many people think if a baby is in a uterus it isn’t human. It’s like a dog or alien.

That doesnt seem to stop us for murders tho, right? We charge people that kill people in other states. So I dont know what point you have here, except the admitted recognition that the unborn ARENT persons nor are they equal to persons nor do most Americans, including yourself, consider them that way.

So then why the hysteria over abortion to the point where women who have reproductive emergencies are now scrutinized under the law, rather than their doctor's judgement? Their lives are risked and even lost. Why? Me? I'm against the restrictions BECAUSE they place women at risk for no good reason. As you even write...we cant really stop the practice...but you and many others support laws that punish innocent women with reproductive emergencies. I object to that...risking their lives unnecessarily, causing them unnecessary pain and suffering. In some cases having to get on planes to go to another state for an emergency procedure for a fetus that wont survive anyway.

Here's something no one seems to realize. ~97% of all abortions take place before 12 weeks. The ones after that are almost all medically necessary...due to her health or defects in the unborn. So when THOSE women have emergencies and go to the dr...those are WANTED pregnancies. Not women seeking abortions. And if they need the abortion or removal of a septic fetus...they are grieving a loss. This was an anticipated family member. She and her partner now have to deal with govt intrusion, delays in treatment, questioning, additional pain and suffering when they are already grieving.

This is the punitive and unnecessary judgmental and dangerous result of overturning RvW. Women have died and nearly died due to delays or refusals of treatment.

 

[Lursa]

As I said, I don’t think abortion is a federal issue. It’s highly contentious, just as slavery was, but at least with slavery we fought a civil war and passed a constitutional amendment banning the practice. Even then it wasn’t really settled for another century. In some ways blacks were still de facto slaves in some areas of the country, denied the full rights of citizenship promised them under our constitution.

Bedsides being a rationalist, I’m also a realist. We don’t live in a monolithic one man, one vote democracy. We live in a federal republic, bound by certain shared values and traditions. But we don’t all think alike. It’s a diverse country. I left California decades ago, where I was born and raised and spent half my life, with a central reason being the state’s liberal politics.

So my suggestion to any woman who thinks she has a right to an abortion is this: unless she wants to start a revolution or work to pass a constitutional amendment enumerating a right for her to kill her unborn baby, she should probably find a state more to her liking—like I did.

Everything you wrote shows that you dont consider the unborn "the same" as persons and that abortion is not murder. Just like the majority of Americans. Every state but one so far since Dobbs, when they get to vote on it...they voted to repeal newly imposed abortion restrictions (or old pre-RvW state laws).

Nobody considers the murder of persons "a states' rights" issue...do they? (And we have the Const to protect us there, right?)

If they thought it was murder, the killing of "little babies"...the anti-abortites would never agree that it was a state's rights issue. When people say that now, after Dobbs, it just means that they have to accept a new, more clarified reality. Even if it is one where all pregnant women now face more risks and dangers with their pregnancies. Even if the truly poor, the women most in need of abortions, cannot afford to go to another state and we end up with more families living in poverty, at higher risk for less education, fewer opportunities, and more criminal behavior.

How on earth are these "wins?"

 

[choiceone]

Most people understand that there is a unique, developing human life at stake here, one whose fate is in the hands of another human being. There comes a point at which that life would be viable outside of the mother’s womb. And yet that fact, according to abortion proponents, is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the woman’s bodily autonomy, which only ends once the baby is born. They take a legal argument—that personhood begins at birth—and discard any ethical considerations where they concern the interests of society or the developing baby. Fortunately, most states (the sane ones) still say there comes a point at which the state’s interest in assuring the welfare of the mother and potential life outweigh the mother’s right to bodily autonomy.

First, you are wrong that abortion proponents, as you call them, care only about the woman's bodily autonomy and discard any ethical considerations where they concern the interests of society. Most pro-choice people are not proponents of abortion, but proponents of choice whether to continue or end a pregnancy. They do not care only about the woman's bodily autonomy, because most supported Roe v Wade. That opinion said states could even ban abortion after fetal viability as long as the ban carried exceptions for when a woman's life or the health of her major organs were at serious risk according to a medical doctor.

That is saying that the state's interest in the fetus's potential life can outweigh the woman's right to bodily autonomy, but cannot outweigh her rights to life and minimal well-being as determined by medical science, because doctors have a right to save a patient's life/health of major organs professionally.

You just don't like the fact that doctors aren't required to treat the fetus as an equal patient, but it isn't. If it were, there would be no criterion to use when the doctor could only save either the woman or the fetus. He/she does not have the right to choose the fetus over the woman, and neither does a state legislator or federal legislator. And that's the whole point - it's how you know that the woman's worth outweighs that of the fetus.

 

[choiceone]

So it was never about “freedom of choice,” or Roe granting a “right to choose” (to terminate a pregnancy), eh?

Even if I accept your premise (which I don’t), your second claim—the existence of a presumed right to better-quality medical care—is also nonexistent under the legal principles upon which our constitutional system was built. No one has a right to demand that someone else accommodate their personal medical needs. That includes doctors. That principle falls under the concept of so-called demand-based “positive rights.” I mean, you can make an argument that women have a right to abort a fetus based on bodily autonomy, absent any other ethical or moral considerations or societal interests in promoting public safety or the social order. However, your second characterization of an alleged abortion right would have to include a demand that a third party provide those services, and that’s where that party’s right to not be compelled to act in a certain way begins and the woman’s “right to choose” ends.

You misunderstand what the right is. A woman has a right to seek and receive medical treatment, at least if the doctor is willing to provide it, and a doctor has a right to offer medical treatment to effect a result healthier for a patient than would be the case if she continued her natural condition.

The doctor has always had a right not to offer that medical treatment if his/her ethics are that the woman's natural pregnancy is healthy enough. We leave it to the doctor to decide because there is always objective evidence that pregnancy is not.will not be healthy for a woman, but without women continuing pregnancies, the species would end. The doctor, as a medical professional, has to decide whether offering or not offering abortion is more ethical in each case.

In a case where a woman is very likely to die or be permanently seriously disabled if she didn't have an abortion, for example, I would consider the doctor who refused to offer one unethical, while in a case where the woman is unlikely to die or be seriously disabled even temporarily, you would consider the doctor who offered one to be unethical. But neither of us is the person doing the offering or performing, so, given human ethical relativity, we leave it to the doctor.

That, at any rate, is what Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey implied. Dobbs merely moves the issue from federal to state, allowing the state not to recognize either a woman's right or a doctor's right, and the result in anti-abortion states has been some women's deaths and serious disabilities.

I wish those women or their families could sue their anti-abortion legislators/governors for millions of dollars in damages for THEIR unethical behavior, but they can't.

The thing is the “history and tradition” test was the legal standard for most of the country’s history when it came to the issue of determining the existence of a right where it was not enumerated in the Constitution.

The thing is that, in colonial America and the US for much of the 1800s, "menstrual regulation" or "ending menstrual blockage" was not identified with "abortion" popularly, so when people made statutory laws, they weren't necessarily interpreted the way Alito interpreted them.

End Part 1

 

[choiceone]

In the early days of the country, states generally followed English common law because they had not yet organized statutory systems. And under English common law, deliberately terminating a pregnancy once it could be determined that it actually existed (in other words, after the quickening) was generally considered a crime even if it was rarely enforced. As I said, doctors were ethically bound to refrain from performing abortions, and their stance began being codified beginning in the 19th Century, which coincided with advancements in medical care.

The problem with your interpretation is this. The quickening was used to prove not that a fetus existed, but that it was capable of voluntary movement, the basis of mind-directed human action. So your view, that the proven existence of a live embryo/fetus with a human genetic code exists justifies its violation of the woman's body, wasn't theirs. They didn't think the embryo/fetus was alive without that basis. They didn't define human life in the mindless way you do. And advancements in medical care had nothing to do with it.

So for the reasons I’ve outlined it’s problematic to argue that women have a right to abortions on any basis beyond a natural right encompassing bodily autonomy, which can be and often is limited in civil society.

Men are not the source of life - women are. Until there is evidence that the fetus is sufficiently developed to be capable of continuing life itself, without the woman giving it, that life belongs to the woman.

The quarrel between pro-choice and anti-choice people has always rested on the question of whose life is involved, that of the woman or the fetus, of when the embryo/fetus has a completely separate life.

End Part 2

 

[choiceone]

For crying out loud, she’s not a slave because she can’t kill her fetus.

She's saying that the woman is a slave because she can't stop a pregnancy, and she's right.

Didn’t Roe say she had her bodily autonomy only in the First Trimester? So the Court was wrong then, too? That if Mommy Dearest wanted to kill it at full-term that was her right? Sorry, but if that’s your argument it flops among reasonable people, because they understand that simply where a baby is physically located doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a human being. And what about Doc? You wouldn’t have the state compel him to become a slave and perform abortions, would you?

We've told you repeatedly that Roe said abortion in the first trimester was so safe that there wasn't a reason for the state to interfere with the woman's seeking and receiving a voluntary abortion and the doctor's offering and performing such an abortion. The health issue began to arise in the second trimester, so the state could regulate the practice of abortion for the woman's health as determined by a doctor. A state was allowed to ban abortion altogether in the third trimester except if, in the medical doctor's view, her life/health of major organs was at serious risk.


You are talking about a human fetus, not a human being, and you're completely ignoring the decision in Roe, which paid no attention to the fetus, but certainly did allow the doctor to decide. Pro-choice meant that the woman decided about her body and the doctor decided about whether or not to perform an abortion without the interference of the state up to the end of the second trimester. The state could interfere on behalf of the potential life of the fetus only at that point, but it couldn't prevent the doctor from deciding to perform an abortion if, in his/her professional view, it seriously threatened her life/health of her major organs.

Any other questions or issues on this topic while I’m not focused on Palestinians or the economy?

==

 

[choiceone]

Preventing harm to a woman’s unborn fetus is still not analogous to “treating women like slave owners did.” Not even close. I mean, if you want to talk about losing your bodily autonomy and being treated like a slave, how about when a man is conscripted into the Army to go off and die in a jungle in a foreign land he probably couldn’t identify on a map? Doesn’t that check all of your boxes? Did anyone ask him if he wanted to be flown thousands of miles away from his wife and family for possibly years so he could kill people and potentially lose his own life? How about his right to bodily autonomy when it comes to not getting awakened at 4:30 in the morning to go on a 10-mile hike with a full pack or not get vaccinated for Japanese Encephalitis?

First, preventing harm to a woman's implanted fetus cannot occur without doing something to the woman, because no one can even know a woman is pregnant without asking her to consent to providing that information, and she has a right not to provide it (4th amendment). Hence, when the state tells a doctor he/ she can't provide an abortion, it is, first, interfering with his/her practice of medicine. The justification for doing this in the case of abortion is that the state wants the pregnancy to continue, and if this is against the will of the woman, it is certainly forcing her body to do something unhealthy for it by using the force of law. At the same time, this is very different from conscription.

Conscription is never forced on minors, and exceptions have always been made for men who are too young or old, too tall or short, thin or fat, have sufficiently poor vision, hearing, balance, muscularity, or health or low enough IQs. Moreover, the government has always allowed deferments for higher education if the person maintains adequate marks, and someone can continue the determent for grad school for so long that he can become too old to be drafted. It has also always allowed conscientious objection to combat and taking a medical corps role.

Furthermore, men have been able to choose to enlist in the Navy, Army, or Air Force before conscription has occurred, and in this way men have had a choice of posts. In the time of the Vietnam War, men who wanted to avoid dangerous combat in jungles could join the Navy voluntarily and put in for first, second, and third choices that avoided it. That war was a land-air war, and if Vietnam wasn't on their choice list, they wouldn't be sent there. The Navy never gave anyone their first choice, but it tried hard to give the second or third.

Back in the Middle Ages, there was some princess who recorded in her diary that she would a hundred times prefer going into battle than ever go through even one pregnancy and childbirth again. Presumably because in war, the enemy is outside of your body and you have weapons, so you have a fair chance of protecting your bodily autonomy, while in pregnancy, the supposedly innocent embryo inside IS the enemy, you have no weapons, and you have no autonomy because someone is using your body against your will every moment.

Well, you said “bodily autonomy is EVERYTHING,” and clearly the Court in Roe disagreed with that characterization. The decision maintained that there was a “compelling state interest” in protecting the life of the fetus and the woman’s health.



Well, I just did. In civil society, bodily autonomy is clearly not EVERYTHING. There are other things, like ensuring that we have an army that can defend the country—or preventing the destruction of a human life.

I have said everything necessary about the military above. Like that princess, I think anyone stands a better chance of having a better future if one has to serve in the military than if one has to endure pregnancy and childbirth.

 

[choiceone]

Now you’re just in a cognitive dissonant denial mode talking out of both sides of your mouth: “Bodily autonomy is EVERYTHING—UNLESS you’re a man who gets drafted.”



Seriously? That was a central part of the Trimester Framework argument used is Roe. v. Wade:


Roe v. Wade, p. 150


Roe v. Wade, p. 159

No offense, but your argument about bodily autonomy being EVERYTHING is a crock of... never mind.



So it's okay to make a man a slave--practically literally--stick him with needles for typhoid, malaria, yellow fever, and God only knows what else, all while risking his life as long as it's for the right cause--but he can't buy himself a beer! And if he wants to go anywhere without walking he better be wearing a seatbelt or helmet! Got it!

First of all, the military is a societal cause, protecting the entire society, not just one potential human life. Second, when you're in it, although in combat there are times you can't sleep or rest for a couple of days, even combat soldiers and POW's get breaks. Pregnant women get no breaks.

And if you got drafted, it's partly because you didn't apply for or deserve a deferment for higher education, or you didn't use your intelligence to enlist carefully so as to avoid things you would find odious, etc.

I myself was never against an 18 year old guy being allowed to buy and drink a beer.

And requiring seatbelts or helmets is about using unnecessary mechanical vehicles - the requirement goes with the unnecessary machine, not with just natural being.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The SCOTUS is a partisan super-legislature. It is not a neutral arbiter of law. Saying it is "wrong" is saying you disagree with a political decision it made.

Nope. Roe and Casey were political decisions with no constitutional basis for abortion, trimesters or viability.

 

[choiceone]

The relevant point is the characterization of the unborn embryo or fetus as an object of murder. Human beings are the only entities capable of assuming that role.

The Dobbs decision did not make embryos or fetuses objects of murder. In fact, by leaving abortion as an issue up to each state, the decision allowed any state to allow abortion up to the moment of childbirth. In that sense, it recognized the embryo/fetus as less than Roe v Wade did.

The Hippocratic Oath was an ethical statement, not a commentary on the state of medical science. . Your characterization seemingly flies in the face of history, because statutes outlawing abortion came to the fore in the 19th Century as medical science advanced. What advanced in the 20th Century was Planned Parenthood, based on the idea that if we were ever to achieve Utopia we'd need to get rid of "undesirables"--like stupid and poor people.

The Hippocratic Oath was an ethical statement of ancient Greek, Roman, and European Medieval values. In classical Greece, almost all women got married, and those who did were virtual slaves. Women didn't have the right to be equal in Greek democracy, Roman representative government, etc. Those values devalued, demeaned, and insulted all women everywhere in all times.

Medicine in the 1800s was so backward that it made hardly any advances. The 20th century was different. And in the 20th century, Planned Parenthood was based on the idea that family planning and the limitation of an excessive number of pregnancies would be much better for the health and well-being of women. And that was completely true then and is true now.

Throughout the history of America, when abortion was always illegal at some point.



But we're talking about "history and tradition" in the context of constitutional rights. There is no enumerated constitutional right to medical care in the United States, and, at least up to this point, SCOTUS has not attempted to incorporate such a right under either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Even though there is no enumerated right to medical care, there is a right to free trade, a right to seek and receive medical care from a doctor with the right to offer and provide it. And medical care is predicated on the notion that a medical specialist should be able to improve the health and future health of a person by offering and providing such care. And that IS what is provided when a woman voluntarily seeks and receives an abortion from a licensed physician. If the state wants to interfere, then if the woman dies or is disabled because it denied her and the doctor those rights, it should have to pay damages through the nose.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet abortion was not banned. Still is not today either.

Eventually, it will be. Only a matter of time.

Abortion would be a solution to that.

Nope, abortion is a blight.

There is no legal argument that fetuses are persons.

Sure there is. They have a heartbeat, they have brain activity, and they might even have souls.

Half right. Too many kids is a problem. Fewer kids solves the problem.

Um, no, most of the industrialized world is in a demographic death spiral because people aren't having enough kids.

The government forcing women to gestate is also not a solution, but rather exacerbates the problem.

I would agree that the government would probably just mess things up. (But that's probably what you guys are forcing.) I would MUCH rather have a situation where abortion is rare because it's considered socially unacceptable.

That sounds racist.

If these people were so awesome, they'd be staying home making their own miserable countries awesome.

Instead of sneaking under a fence to get into this country.

Now, I think Trump's policies are horrible, but he has a point. 16% immigration is unsustainable if you still want to have a national identity.