RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by Some Schmo »

Part of the problem is how many people seem to worry about the rights of a non-baby/potential baby/non-conscious entity and don't give a crap about the rights of the pregnant family.

Of course we want people to choose to have their baby, if they're in a position to do so. The problem is forcing it on people. The argument isn't over the not-yet-a-baby. The argument is over every individual's autonomy and ability to make decisions for what's best for ourselves, and not adhering to an idiotic one-size-fits-all law.

I can't think of anything dumber than forcing people who don't think they're ready/don't want/don't have the money to have kids to have kids. If anything, there should be a test to become a parent beyond functioning reproductive organs. It should be harder to become a parent, not easier.

Goddammit, what a stupid idea it is. Beyond thoughtless.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by ajax18 »

The right that was removed being that of a "constitutionally protected interest in making certain kinds of important decisions free from governmental compulsion."

Welp. Democracy was a nice idea while it lasted anyway. An independent judiciary being central to said democracy of course.

How can anyone read the constitution and think the founding fathers had abortion in mind? The supreme court never had any business at all legislating on what kind of abortion should be legal. That belongs to the legislature and to the individual states. No rights have been taken away. The question is simply kicked back to the states and the legislature where it belongs.

It's amazing that politically neutral orginalist justices are somehow perceived as partisans legislating from the bench while the 66 page dissent which has no consititutional argument at all but relies completely on public policy and the argument that abortion is a good thing and the supreme court should get to decide what the law should be because we like unrestricted abortion. The left is all for partisan supreme court justices legislating from the bench when they agree with them.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by honorentheos »

ajax18 wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:10 pm
The right that was removed being that of a "constitutionally protected interest in making certain kinds of important decisions free from governmental compulsion."

Welp. Democracy was a nice idea while it lasted anyway. An independent judiciary being central to said democracy of course.

How can anyone read the constitution and think the founding fathers had abortion in mind? The supreme court never had any business at all legislating on what kind of abortion should be legal. That belongs to the legislature and to the individual states. No rights have been taken away. The question is simply kicked back to the states and the legislature where it belongs.

It's amazing that politically neutral orginalist justices are somehow perceived as partisans legislating from the bench while the 66 page dissent which has no consititutional argument at all but relies completely on public policy and the argument that abortion is a good thing and the supreme court should get to decide what the law should be because we like unrestricted abortion. The left is all for partisan supreme court justices legislating from the bench when they agree with them.
ajax, Chief Justice Roberts commented on both of your points. Were the court neutral in it's ruling it would have upheld the Mississippi law only, restricting abortion in the State after 15 weeks. It chose to dismiss judicial neutrality in favor of making a sweeping decision to overturn Roe. Second, the rights we enjoy and view to be protected are almost to the letter derived from the amendments to the Constitution. Again Chief Justice Roberts pointed those out in his opinion. The Constitution is silent on assault rifles and butt sex yet you don't like government telling you what you can or can't do with regard to either of those.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by Binger »

Morley wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:29 pm
Morley wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:49 pm


Thank you for your response, Binger.

You’re saying that you don’t see it that way. I’m interested in understanding your point of view.

I can’t very well say that I believe in the Constitution, but that I think the document itself is mistaken in how we should interpret it. If we don’t allow the Constitution to define its own processes and procedures, what do we rely on as valid definitions?
Binger wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:25 pm
I not sure what that means to "believe in the Constitution." Way back in the day, I said I believed in God and all kind of stuff. I don't do that any more.
Let me expand that sentence: I can’t very well say that I believe in the Constitution as the foundational law of the land, but that I think the document itself is mistaken in how we should interpret it. If we don’t allow the Constitution to define its own processes and procedures, what do we rely on as valid definitions?

You kind of skipped over responding to this.

You can't say something is not constitutional when the constitution itself defines what makes a things constitutional.

By definition, both Roe and Dobbs were constitutional, whether anyone thinks they should have been decided that way or not.

Binger wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:25 pm
The constitution is a framework for our laws, process and rights. I think, more often than not, it gets shredded and abused more than it gets used. If the original document caught on fire today and we had to start over, I doubt it would have much of an effect other than selling clicks and views to consumers. But since we have the constitution and we are using it - it does not mention abortion. Any rights that exist may be extrapolated from other things, but meh, whatever, it does not say abortion. So, everyone can go back to their own towns and states and figure out how to have their own body and make their own choices.
You talking about what you think should have happened. Not about what did happen.
Binger wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:25 pm
On Roe and abortion and the court. My take is simple. I believe in "my body my choice" and the last person or entity in the world that I trust to either tolerate my choice or respect my body - is a federal government. I am fine if the feds stick to the constitutionality of things and leave the lawmaking to the states. I am not interested in a government that is run by Schumer/Biden one day and McConnell on another day making decisions for bodies and choices.

On abortion, the service. I think it should be legal everywhere.
I see your point. Personally, I trust the Feds before I trust the states.

Binger wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:25 pm
On what just happened. Well, no crap Sherlock. Of course this happened. There were some smart people that thought the Roe decision was problematic and now the states can do whatever the hell they want. Are we still pretending that the vaccine passports and "your body but not your choice" orders for the last 2 years did not have an impact on this, or nah? I expect there will be more rulings coming up where the decision making get returned to the states.
I'm not pretending anything. This isn't part of what I'm arguing.
Sorry man. That wasn't directed at you. It was a generic “we”.
User avatar
Dwight
Deacon
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by Dwight »

A story about oh well you can always go to another state. Someone I know of, a friend of a friend I have met once, just a little over a month ago lost her twins at about 20 weeks. She is Jewish so completely in line with her deeply held religious beliefs to have a termination surgery. She also lives in upstate New York. Two hospitals rejected the surgery outright, one would require her to go in front of an ethics board.

Alito cited the originalism of when the 14th amendment was written, but abortions were definitely known about. That he claimed otherwise does not make it the truth. I believe there were laws around ingredients and such used, but nothing really outright outlawing it before the quickening (essentially around viability). Benjamin Franklin put a recipe in a book. I just think if that is the originalism then it is only correct for this the Supreme Court to interpret the second amendment in the context of muskets and canons and it can’t possibly apply to other arms.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by canpakes »

ajax18 wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:10 pm
How can anyone read the constitution and think the founding fathers had abortion in mind? The supreme court never had any business at all legislating on what kind of abortion should be legal. That belongs to the legislature and to the individual states. No rights have been taken away. The question is simply kicked back to the states and the legislature where it belongs.

With regard to abortion availability overall, this seems like a diversionary aspect.

When the State decides to legislate on the matter, how does their decision differ - in practical means - for the residents of the State? Isn’t the decision at this level basically the same sort of ‘government overreach’ that you would label for SC or Federal-level decisions?
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by canpakes »

Dwight wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:20 am
canpakes wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:19 pm



After the successful implantation, were they left with any spare fertilized eggs that were not implanted? What did they do with them?
My understanding is like most there were multiple eggs fertilized, then a few were put in in hopes that as the case would be at least one successfully implanted and that there are still some fertilized eggs sitting in a freezer in case they want to give it another go to have another kid.

I will wish them good fortune as they build their family.

The issue of extra embryos is causing a bit of a dilemma, given that some folks who are arguably ‘pro life’ find themselves storing some of their own extra fertilized embryos but not having the financial means or desire to have additional children.

Those extras are eventually discarded.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/features ... s-n1040806

Some sources estimate that there are over 90,000 abandoned embryos in freezers just at this moment, with a count of millions disposed of over the years.

If abortion is to be judged immoral, then discarding fertilized embryos created through the IVF process is essentially the same - if not worse - than typical abortion, given the plain intent of having fertilized the eggs in the first place. There’s some tragic irony in that.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by honorentheos »

Some Schmo wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:54 pm
Part of the problem is how many people seem to worry about the rights of a non-baby/potential baby/non-conscious entity and don't give a crap about the rights of the pregnant family.
There is a legitimate question beyond this regarding where the rights of the unborn establish such that the state has an obligation to protect those rights including a right to life.

Roe set that at viability of the developing fetus to live outside of the womb. The competing right of a woman to decide to end a pregnancy extending up to that point when the developing human is seen to have attained personhood - i.e.
being their own person rather than the biological results of a sexual coupling that is just a different stage of development from a pre-fertilization orgasm.

There are genuinely, inherently competing rights in the debate and issues involved. We have an obligation to acknowledge and operate within the recognition of that complexity. The court chose to dismiss the entire debate with it's decision, though, generally writing that the issue is not inherently within the Constitution so the the Supreme Court was obligated to dismiss Roe as wrongly decided. Kavanaugh wrote further to say that the 1992 Casey decision had attempted compromise as a buffer as public opinion towards abortion shifted towards women's right to choose, which in turn has proven wrong given the number of states that continued to challenge the viability standard for when abortion should be legal in order to allow for choice over the continued development and eventual birth. The argument doesn't dismiss the complexity. It argues that the the Supreme Court is the wrong place to decide that question. Thomas is the most aggressive and comically cites himself way too often in his supporting opinion. He argues the court is too quick to extend rights to classes of people and views the application of substantial due process as egregiously erroneous and why it seems he would open the door to seeing many other cases revisited. He seems to have always had a bone to pick with the application of the Due Process Clause, derived from the 5th and 14th amendments, to the establishment of rights.
Last edited by honorentheos on Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by canpakes »

Dwight wrote:
Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:45 pm
Alito cited the originalism of when the 14th amendment was written, but abortions were definitely known about. That he claimed otherwise does not make it the truth. I believe there were laws around ingredients and such used, but nothing really outright outlawing it before the quickening (essentially around viability). Benjamin Franklin put a recipe in a book. I just think if that is the originalism then it is only correct for this the Supreme Court to interpret the second amendment in the context of muskets and canons and it can’t possibly apply to other arms.

You’re correct. Within the original 13 colonies, abortion wasn’t discussed in polite company but it was not illegal. The fact that it wasn’t a topic of common conversation was rooted more in the fact that there existed laws about fornication, and needing an abortion might then tend to bring unwanted attention to someone who could be deemed to have violated those laws.

As for later decades - this excerpt of a review of N.E.H. Hull and Peter Hoffer’s excellent book Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History, sheds some light on the conditions and attitudes between Colonial and more modern times--
Hull and Hoffer provide a detailed analysis of how and why states began to ban abortion after the Civil War. The antiabortion laws were not, as one might think from the modern debate, rooted in moral claims about when life begins or whether a fetus is a human being. Rather, three trends of late nineteenth century thought and culture led to the laws banning abortion.

First, there was the hostility to sex and sexuality that epitomized middle class Victorian morality. Sex was dirty and so anything having to do with sex, other than for procreation, was to be stamped out. (Queen Victoria is alleged to have told women that when they went to bed with their husbands they should lie down, close their eyes, and think of England.)

This ideology led to the Comstock laws — named for the most famous prude and busybody in American history, Anthony Comstock — which ostensibly banned pornography from the mails, but were in fact used to suppress dissemination of information about birth control, family planning, human sexuality, and abortion.

Third, and finally, the assault on legalized abortion came from the medical profession. Some physicians wanted to rid the nation of midwives, purveyors of patent medicine, and other non-professional medical practitioners. Others had the interests of pregnant women at heart, arguing that abortion was a dangerous procedure that often ended in the death of the woman.

Changing the Antiabortion Laws

This last origin of the antiabortion laws would arise in the Roe litigation a century later. In arguing to uphold his state's abortion law, Texas assistant attorney general Jay Floyd was forced to concede that the antiabortion laws had not been passed to protect the fetus. Rather, they had been enacted to protect the mother from a dangerous medical procedure often performed in the late nineteenth century by quacks and non-professionals.

By 1973, this paternalistic notion of protecting women was neither acceptable nor constitutional. Furthermore, as Sarah Weddington would show in her argument for the other side in Roe, abortions were actually safer for women than carrying a pregnancy to term. Clearly, the nineteenth century rationale for abortion could not hold up in the late twentieth.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

Post by Moksha »

Utah law now prohibits abortion for all defects short of vegetative brain function. What will become of these surviving children?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply