SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked one primary question during the oral arguments in the Court on Wednesday, as the Justices took up hearing a watershed case on abortion rights in the United States, and he asked it more than once.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization deals with the constitutionality of a law enacted in Mississippi in 2018 that prohibits abortions in cases where "the probable gestational age of the unborn human" was more than 15 weeks.

I will be very interested to see how this case turns out.  I'm not holding my breath on Roe and/or Casey being overturned, though.

Quote

Justice Thomas was specifically interested in the question of what constitutional right the right to get an abortion is based on. He asked counsel, "If I know your interest here is in abortion. I understand that. But if I were to ask you what constitutional right protects the right to abortion? Is it privacy is it autonomy? What would it be?"

"It's liberty, your Honor. It's the textual protection in the 14th Amendment that a state can't deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, and the Court has interpreted liberty to include the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy including the right to end a pre-viability pregnancy," counsel answered.

I think this is a pretty good answer (though whether it is accurate and/or sufficient in the eyes of a majority of SCOTUS remains to be seen).  In a sense, it jibes with the (very limited) exceptions that the Church recognizes as pertaining to abortion:

Quote

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption.

(Emphasis added.)

Where pregnancy is not the result of volitional behavior, such as from sexual assault, then the "liberty interest" of the mother is, I think, implicated.  She did not consent to the sexual activity.

The personhood of the child needs to be addressed, I think.

Back to the article:

Quote

"So it's all of the above," Thomas asked. The two discussed cases for a moment, before Thomas went back to looking for an answer to his original question.

"But what I'm trying to focus on, is if we, is to lower the level of generality, or at least be a little bit more specific. In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the court found in the due process, substantive due process clause. Okay. Or in substantive due process, and I'm trying to get you to tell me what are we relying on now? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What is it?" He asked.

"I think it continues to be liberty," counsel responded, "and the right exists whatever level of generality the court applies. There was a tradition under the common law for centuries of women being able to end their pregnancies. But in addition, when it comes to decisions related to family, marriage and childbearing, the court has done the analysis at a higher level of generality. And that makes sense, because otherwise the Constitution would reinforce the historical discrimination against women."

There was also a "tradition under the common law for centuries" that allowed slavery.  But then William Wilberforce and others came along and challenged that legal tradition.  And central to that challenge was . . . the personhood of the slaves.

Quote

Later, he asked general counsel this question again, looking for clarity as to what constitutional right backs that of abortion. "General," he asked, "would you specifically tell me specifically, state what the right is it specifically a board is that liberty is that autonomy? Is it privacy?"

"The right is grounded in the Liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas, and that I think that it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and equality. And I do think that it is specifically right to abortion here the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy whether to carry that baby to term," general counsel responded.

That was not enough clarity for Thomas, and he pressed. "I understand we're talking about abortion here," he said. "But what is confusing is that if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking about the Fourth Amendment. I know what we're talking about. Because it's written, it's there. What specifically is the right ear that we're talking about?"

"Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the court," counsel responded, "in this other context with respect to those other amendments, has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the constitutional guarantees and it's done so through a variety of different tests that implement first amendment rights, 2nd Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights. So I don't think that there is anything unprecedented or anomalous about the right that the court articulated in Roe and Casey and the way that it implemented that right by defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability and providing the data is the moment when the balance of interests hips, and when the state can act to prohibit a woman from getting an abortion based on its interest in protecting the fetal life at that point."

"So the right specifically is abortion," Thomas asked.

"It's the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with a pregnancy. Yes," counsel responded.

Very good reasoning here.  But I am not sure that tying personhood to "viability" is workable in the long run.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I will be very interested to see how this case turns out.  I'm not holding my breath on Roe and/or Casey being overturned, though.

I think this is a pretty good answer (though whether it is accurate and/or sufficient in the eyes of a majority of SCOTUS remains to be seen).  In a sense, it jibes with the (very limited) exceptions that the Church recognizes as pertaining to abortion:

(Emphasis added.)

Where pregnancy is not the result of volitional behavior, such as from sexual assault, then the "liberty interest" of the mother is, I think, implicated.  She did not consent to the sexual activity.

The personhood of the child needs to be addressed, I think.

Back to the article:

There was also a "tradition under the common law for centuries" that allowed slavery.  But then William Wilberforce and others came along and challenged that legal tradition.  And central to that challenge was . . . the personhood of the slaves.

Very good reasoning here.  But I am not sure that tying personhood to "viability" is workable in the long run.

Thanks,

-Smac

And personhood may come to have nothing to do with biological viability in the age of AI, and more perhaps to do with an individual entity's innate ability to choose. Where more and more value is placed on data and information, and DNA and AI patents hold the information, "innate" could cover any point along an entity's timeline post-template. The question may become, at what point do the innate qualities of the information constitute an entity?

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And personhood may come to have nothing to do with biological viability in the age of AI, and more perhaps to do with an individual entity's innate ability to choose.

Could you elaborate?  What does "the age of AI" have to do with "biological viability" relative to abortion and the personhood of fetuses?

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Where more and more value is placed on data and information, and DNA and AI patents hold the information, "innate" could cover any point along an entity's timeline post-template. The question may become, at what point do the innate qualities of the information constitute an entity?

I think we are very far away from the law trying to parse that hair.  I think the law is considerably closer to addressing the personhood issue, though (we've done it several times before with slavery, suffrage and women's rights, Jim Crow, same-sex marriage, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  What does "the age of AI" have to do with "biological viability" relative to abortion and the personhood of fetuses?

I think we are very far away from the law trying to parse that hair.  I think the law is considerably closer to addressing the personhood issue, though (we've done it several times before with slavery, suffrage and women's rights, Jim Crow, same-sex marriage, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

Granted, my comments are looking past the immediate decision to be made by the Supreme Court. Should human fetuses without biological viability be granted personhood, a biologically viable person, also having personhood, would be limited in the legal exercise of their choice to abort. The DNA (the data / information) thus determines personhood since viability is not relevant, and the right to choose is inherent in personhood.

Where we do not know the fetus’ capacity to choose, or their choice, the default is to wait until we do.

The current discussion to grant personhood irrespective of biological viability opens up the way for AI personhood and their attendant rights to choose. So, intelligent entities could thus conceivably be granted personhood, and have the same legal exercise to abort their “v.2” or even artificially conceived human beings for whom they are surrogate gestating parents. They would have the same protection from destruction, both “pre-”and “post-” artificial viability, with conditions for permitting destruction.

[bluebell]

I'm conflicted on the abortion issue. 

I don't want them to be illegal in all cases.  We need exceptions for the health of the mother and for cases of rape.  Heartbeat laws (making abortion illegal after a heartbeat is detected) are useless since by the time you are considered six weeks pregnant and a heartbeat appears, your period is only 2 weeks late.   Most men have no idea how pregnancy timing is measured and creating a line in the sand during a window of time that the mother might not yet even know she's pregnant (most pregnancy symptoms don't show up until 7 or 8 weeks pregnant) isn't very pragmatic. 

But, neither do I want to keep seeing these stories all over the internet about how abortion was the right choice for a woman because "I wasn't ready to be a mom yet".  To me, that is not a valid reason to get an abortion, but an admission of immaturity and a celebration of selfishness.  As long as adoption is legal and there are adoptive parents looking for kids, not wanting to be a mom is no excuse to kill the child you chose--by choosing to have sex--to create.

I think we also need to change some of the terms we use so that we can regulate late term abortions much better.  I want to differentiate between a 20 week fetus that has died in the womb and needs to be removed (which is defined medically as a late term abortion), and someone who wants to end the life of a 20 week fetus because they don't want to be a mom.  Lumping them both together, and using that as a reason to keep all late-term abortions legal, doesn't make sense to be either.

I can't see any way to legislate legal abortions but not for selfish reasons, so I'm a bit stuck.

[BRMC]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm conflicted on the abortion issue. 

I don't want them to be illegal in all cases.  We need exceptions for the health of the mother and for cases of rape.  Heartbeat laws (making abortion illegal after a heartbeat is detected) are useless since by the time you are considered six weeks pregnant and a heartbeat appears, your period is only 2 weeks late.   Most men have no idea how pregnancy timing is measured and creating a line in the sand during a window of time that the mother might not yet even know she's pregnant (most pregnancy symptoms don't show up until 7 or 8 weeks pregnant) isn't very pragmatic. 

But, neither do I want to keep seeing these stories all over the internet about how abortion was the right choice for a woman because "I wasn't ready to be a mom yet".  To me, that is not a valid reason to get an abortion, but an admission of immaturity and a celebration of selfishness.  As long as adoption is legal and there are adoptive parents looking for kids, not wanting to be a mom is no excuse to kill the child you chose--by choosing to have sex--to create.

I think we also need to change some of the terms we use so that we can regulate late term abortions much better.  I want to differentiate between a 20 week fetus that has died in the womb and needs to be removed (which is defined medically as a late term abortion), and someone who wants to end the life of a 20 week fetus because they don't want to be a mom.  Lumping them both together, and using that as a reason to keep all late-term abortions legal, doesn't make sense to be either.

I can't see any way to legislate legal abortions but not for selfish reasons, so I'm a bit stuck.

I want them to be illegal in all cases.   While I feel horrible for rape victims and believe the criminals who commit rape should be punished far more harshly than they are now, I don't believe the innocent life created in an illegal and immoral act should be snuffed in another immoral act.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I want them to be illegal in all cases.   While I feel horrible for rape victims and believe the criminals who commit rape should be punished far more harshly than they are now, I don't believe the innocent life created in an illegal and immoral act should be snuffed in another immoral act.

For me, that comes down to the health of the mother and issues of agency.  A suicidal woman or teenager forced to carry her rapist's child to term (which could also be her father or other male relative) against her will is not something that I believe God demands of anyone.  Especially since I don't believe that life (as in the combination of body and spirit) begins at conception, and I also believe that God has stated such exceptions are allowable to him.

How do you feel about abortion to save the life of the mother?

 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I want them to be illegal in all cases.   While I feel horrible for rape victims and believe the criminals who commit rape should be punished far more harshly than they are now, I don't believe the innocent life created in an illegal and immoral act should be snuffed in another immoral act.

What about the dilemma my wife and I faced? She is on high doses of blood thinners for life, and cannot deliver a baby or have a C-section (because of the bleeding involved either way). The blood thinners are bad for the developing baby, and she can't safely be off of them for several months to carry the baby to term (she clots in thousands of places in her organs when her blood isn't thinned. She's already had parts of her ileum and colon removed because of necrosis from clotting). We had a couple of scares when she was late, before I had my vasectomy, and for the first time I was confronted with the question being directly relevant for me. If she did become pregnant, what would we do?

There was no question in her mind --- we would trust in God and carry the baby to term. But, I definitely want there to not be an "illegal in all cases" law. There has to be an exception for legitimate hard cases like our near miss (the overwhelming, vast majority of abortions are elective and not hard cases). I side with you more than not, but not to the extent of "illegal in all cases." 

[BRMC]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For me, that comes down to the health of the mother and issues of agency.  A suicidal woman or teenager forced to carry her rapist's child to term (which could also be her father or other male relative) against her will is not something that I believe God demands of anyone.  Especially since I don't believe that life (as in the combination of body and spirit) begins at conception, and I also believe that God has stated such exceptions are allowable to him.

How do you feel about abortion to save the life of the mother?

 

Sure.  We disagree.  I don't think God thinks it's OK to kill His unborn children.  There are many trials I can't understand and seem very harsh.  

"Abortion to save the life of the mother" is a very broad concept.   If you provide specific examples I will answer if I can.   Keep in mind that abortion is the intentional killing of the unborn.  It is not the death of the unborn as a tertiary effect.

[BRMC]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

What about the dilemma my wife and I faced? She is on high doses of blood thinners for life, and cannot deliver a baby or have a C-section (because of the bleeding involved either way). The blood thinners are bad for the developing baby, and she can't safely be off of them for several months to carry the baby to term (she clots in thousands of places in her organs when her blood isn't thinned. She's already had parts of her ileum and colon removed because of necrosis from clotting). We had a couple of scares when she was late, before I had my vasectomy, and for the first time I was confronted with the question being directly relevant for me. If she did become pregnant, what would we do?

There was no question in her mind --- we would trust in God and carry the baby to term. But, I definitely want there to not be an "illegal in all cases" law. There has to be an exception for legitimate hard cases like our near miss (the overwhelming, vast majority of abortions are elective and not hard cases). I side with you more than not, but not to the extent of "illegal in all cases." 

I agree with your wife's belief.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Sure.  We disagree.  I don't think God thinks it's OK to kill His unborn children.  There are many trials I can't understand and seem very harsh.  

"Abortion to save the life of the mother" is a very broad concept.   If you provide specific examples I will answer if I can.   Keep in mind that abortion is the intentional killing of the unborn.  It is not the death of the unborn as a tertiary effect.

I don't think that God views the life of the unborn to be worth more than the life of the mother.  But I can kind of see why some do view it that way.

[BRMC]

Just now, bluebell said:

I don't think that God views the life of the unborn to be worth more than the life of the mother.  But I can kind of see why some do view it that way.

Neither do I.  That's why I asked for specific examples to have a factual discussion, rather than paint with a broad brush of emotions.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Neither do I.  That's why I asked for specific examples to have a factual discussion, rather than paint with a broad brush of emotions.

It might be easier for you to suggest what you would consider to be an except to the 'it should always be illegal' perspective.  I couldn't guess what you would see as a situation where the life of the mother should be saved over the life of the baby.

It's a hard topic, no matter what situation we are talking about.  If someone's life is in jeopardy, and that person has people or other children who love them and also depend on them for their care, then there are no simple answers, no matter what the belief is.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

For me, that comes down to the health of the mother and issues of agency.  A suicidal woman or teenager forced to carry her rapist's child to term (which could also be her father or other male relative) against her will is not something that I believe God demands of anyone.  Especially since I don't believe that life (as in the combination of body and spirit) begins at conception, and I also believe that God has stated such exceptions are allowable to him.

How do you feel about abortion to save the life of the mother?

 

And in the case of rape, wouldn't the victim know so far in advance that the fetus wouldn't be but as small as a seed or maybe the rape victim or survivor, would be afraid to say something until the fetus is larger. I'm unsure when the spirit enters the womb either. But this is a dilemma for sure.

Also, I wonder what the law says if the fetus is so fraught with problems that it wouldn't be humane to let it live, I mean something so horrific it would be inhumane to make it live. And then the third thing, what if a woman's health couldn't carry a baby, and death would sure to occur. There are variables, and it's not so cut and dry as you've mentioned. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And in the case of rape, wouldn't the victim know so far in advance that the fetus wouldn't be but as small as ?

It's really hard to say.  There is so much trauma that comes with rape, and the age of the victim would play a big part as well.  It would be hard to know how the trauma might impact a victim's ability to recognized what was happening, and be able to verbalize it to someone who was in a position to help.

[kimpearson]

So if the supreme court overturns Roe, abortions will become legal or illegal based on state law.   From my reading it looks like about 22 states would ban abortions, 14 would protect abortions and the other 14 could either ban or limit abortions.  So explain to me how overturning Roe leads to to a desirable result rather than creating an incredible mess.  There are so many states firmly on each side, that such a ruling only further divides the country and inflames partisanship to a higher degree.   Precedence serves a purpose of keeping the courts from becoming overly political.  It seems like so many are bent on destroying that balance and creating courts that are political instead of following established law including precedence.  The correct solution to a nationwide issue like this is through the political process not the courts.  I believe this issue is similar to prohibition, if a significant part of the country wants something legal, then it should be legal.  If a significant part of the country doesn't want it legal then it shouldn't be.  Our personal religious beliefs only go so far when it comes to the laws of the land.  The Church recognizes this in the following statement on the Church's website.  I believe the Church is saying the proper way to deal with the legal issue is the will of the people/ruling party while discouraging abortion with certain exceptions that are broader than most members realize.

 

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

[smac97]

10 Things You Need to Know About Today's Oral Arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Some excerpts:

Quote

Stewart divorced the pro-life movement from a particular religious or philosophical worldview.

Ed Whelan pointed out an assertion that Justice Sonia Sotomayor made:

I think that she said at one point that only a religious belief could lead you to think that the Constitution doesn’t protect abortion. Even if she said or meant that only a religious belief could lead you to oppose abortion, her assertion is absurd.

Right or wrong, people tend to tie the pro-life movement to Christianity or other religious worldviews. But there are those who hold pro-life views for purely secular reasons.

When Justice Alito — a noted Catholic — asked whether a pro-life position is married to a religious mindset, Stewart had a ready reply.

“It’s not tied to a religious view,” he stated, noting that secular scientists also hold a myriad of views on when life begins.

That’s important because it proves that the pro-life movement is more than just a niche religious crusade.

I think that's right.

Quote

We should expect a ruling in late June.

 

Don’t expect a ruling to come before Christmas; in fact, don’t expect anything before next summer. It’s not going to be quick, and it may even be the last decision the Court issues this term.

Dan McLaughlin noted in the National Review liveblog at the beginning of the day:

The Court’s term is likely to end the week of June 27-July 1, 2022, and unless the Court suddenly hits on some simpler resolution of this case, I would wager on Dobbs being handed down the last day of the term, probably June 28 or 29.

After arguments, he wrote:

My takeaway: we were never going to get the satisfaction today of feeling that the outcome was in the bag. No big case ever delivers that at argument. Now, we wait until late June, and of course, we hope nothing happens to the Justices in the interim. But it is hard to see how pro-lifers could be more optimistic about how this argument went.

So be patient, folks. It’s going to take some time.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

My prediction: Everyone except Roberts and Kavanaugh votes the way you expect. Roberts champions for and convinces Kavanaugh to side with him on a decision that weakens Roe but doesn’t overturn it entirely. This will continue for a few years through multiple challenges and death from small cuts until the precedent from Roe is functionally dead.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

Neither do I.  That's why I asked for specific examples to have a factual discussion, rather than paint with a broad brush of emotions.

I'll give you a real situation. A Mom carrying twins and things were fine up until the day of delivery. Well, one of the twins died and as we know bodies start to decompose within a short while and when that happens the toxins can afflict the other baby and the mother. In this case that was happening and the mother actually called her bishop and she thought she would be exed from the church because they had to terminate the other baby or all could die. The Bishop told her of all things you are worrying about right now being excommunicated shouldn't be one of them and it's sad that someone would think of church discipline when you are in the swirl of emotions and everything but anyways, both babies died and the mother lived. Life isn't black or white and if you make it illegal to get a late term abortion this poor woman could face a jail penalty for something out of her control, I think that's morally wrong.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

So if the supreme court overturns Roe, abortions will become legal or illegal based on state law.

Yep.  It becomes a pastiche that changes at each state line:

Quote

Abortion would immediately become illegal in at least 12 states if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, and more would likely follow suit quickly.

Why it matters: The Mississippi case before the Supreme Court Wednesday could throw Roe's survival into question, or at least narrow its scope.

Where it stands: If the court were to ultimately overturn the precedents that established the constitutional right to an abortion, a patchwork of state laws would govern the procedure.

• Oklahoma is the 12th state to have a "trigger law" in place — an abortion ban that would kick in right away if the court overturns its precedents. Four states have even amended their constitutions to prohibit any protections for abortion rights.
• Several other states don't have trigger laws in place but would likely move quickly to ban or tightly restrict the procedure if the court clears the way: Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska and Wyoming would be prime candidates, according to new analysis from the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research organization.
• Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina have all enacted restrictive laws that were then blocked by federal courts. They could try to revive those policies in a post-Roe world.

The other side: At least 15 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted laws that would automatically keep abortion legal if Roe is overturned.

Go deeper:

• Abortions could require 200-mile trip if Roe is overturned
• The Supreme Court's abortion showdown arrives

 

And here:

Quote

The latest stage of pregnancy at which a patient can obtain an abortion by state in 2021 varies from 20 weeks to no limit.

...

If the court strikes Roe down, 22 states have laws on the books that could outright ban or severely limit access to abortion, and 14 states have passed laws that would explicitly protect the right to abortion.

Rome wasn't built in a day.  Slavery wasn't dismantled in a day, either.

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

From my reading it looks like about 22 states would ban abortions, 14 would protect abortions and the other 14 could either ban or limit abortions.  So explain to me how overturning Roe leads to to a desirable result rather than creating an incredible mess. 

Abolishing slavery created an "incredible mess," too.  But it was still worthwhile.

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

There are so many states firmly on each side, that such a ruling only further divides the country and inflames partisanship to a higher degree.   

There were also state-on-state divisions about slavery.  And yet...

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Precedence serves a purpose of keeping the courts from becoming overly political. 

Sure would've been nice if "the courts" had left abortion to the states, instead of making it become "overly political" by federalizing it.

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

It seems like so many are bent on destroying that balance and creating courts that are political instead of following established law including precedence. 

What "balance" are you talking about here?

Also, what are your thoughts about Plessy v. Ferguson?

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

The correct solution to a nationwide issue like this is through the political process not the courts. 

Isn't returning this issue to the states a per se utilization of "the political process" rather than "the courts"?  

States can legislate through elected representatives.  Through the political process.  

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I believe this issue is similar to prohibition, if a significant part of the country wants something legal, then it should be legal. 

If that "something" was slavery, would you still say this?  After all, "a significant part of the country" wanted to keep it "legal."

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

If a significant part of the country doesn't want it legal then it shouldn't be. 

I'm curious as to your thoughts about the role of the various states in all this.

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Our personal religious beliefs only go so far when it comes to the laws of the land. 

Agreed.  But even the Solicitor General, Scott G. Stewart, acknowledged that abortion is not a per se religious issue:

Quote

10:31 a.m. Justice Samuel Alito questions Stewart regarding the idea that being pro-life is a religious view only, and asks if any secular bioethicists believe life exists prior to viability.

"It's not tied to a religious view," says Stewart, who said that there are a host of secular people who have differing views on when life begins.

This is a substantial concession, as it undercuts a popular narrative about the pro-life movement being the sole province of religionists.

To be sure, I'm quite grateful that religious people are speaking and working against elective abortion, one of the great moral atrocities of our day.  

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

The Church recognizes this in the following statement on the Church's website.  I believe the Church is saying the proper way to deal with the legal issue is the will of the people/ruling party while discouraging abortion with certain exceptions that are broader than most members realize.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

I'm sorry, but you seem conflicted about this.  You seem to oppose the overturning of Roe and Casey, which would return the issue to the states.  Do you oppose or support this "legal issue" being addressed by "the will of the people" (i.e., the legislatures of the various states)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'll give you a real situation. A Mom carrying twins and things were fine up until the day of delivery. Well, one of the twins died and as we know bodies start to decompose within a short while and when that happens the toxins can afflict the other baby and the mother. In this case that was happening and the mother actually called her bishop and she thought she would be exed from the church because they had to terminate the other baby or all could die. The Bishop told her of all things you are worrying about right now being excommunicated shouldn't be one of them and it's sad that someone would think of church discipline when you are in the swirl of emotions and everything but anyways, both babies died and the mother lived. Life isn't black or white and if you make it illegal to get a late term abortion this poor woman could face a jail penalty for something out of her control, I think that's morally wrong.

👍

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I'll give you a real situation.

I suspect an "argument from the margins" is afoot.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

A Mom carrying twins and things were fine up until the day of delivery. Well, one of the twins died and as we know bodies start to decompose within a short while and when that happens the toxins can afflict the other baby and the mother. In this case that was happening and the mother actually called her bishop and she thought she would be exed from the church because they had to terminate the other baby or all could die. The Bishop told her of all things you are worrying about right now being excommunicated shouldn't be one of them and it's sad that someone would think of church discipline when you are in the swirl of emotions and everything but anyways, both babies died and the mother lived.

I'm happy to hear it.  But you're arguing from the margins.  Do you realize that?

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Life isn't black or white and if you make it illegal to get a late term abortion this poor woman could face a jail penalty for something out of her control, I think that's morally wrong.

I think you're quite off.  See here:

Quote

The story of rape and incest exceptions began in the late 1950s, when the elite American Law Institute, a nonpartisan group of lawyers, scholars, and judges that proposed legal reforms, considered reforming criminal abortion laws. At the time, most states criminalized all abortions unless continuing a pregnancy would threaten a person’s life. The ALI proposed a broader group of exceptions: for threats to patient health, certain fetal abnormalities, and rape and incest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kimpearson]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm sorry, but you seem conflicted about this.  You seem to oppose the overturning of Roe and Casey, which would return the issue to the states.  Do you oppose or support this "legal issue" being addressed by "the will of the people" (i.e., the legislatures of the various states)?

Thanks,

States shouldn't decide any issue that crosses boarders.  If one state outlaws an action that a citizen of that state can simply go to another state to perform legally, it is a national issue and you are kidding yourself if you think that won't happen.  I don't believe in unlimited states rights in a nation such as ours.  You seem to desire to see the nation burn to enforce beliefs based on your religion rather than the will of the people and a stable nation.   Listen to your church leaders.  Listen to what they are saying.  The peace and preservation of the nation is more important than imposing your religious beliefs on others if the majority feel otherwise.  Work for a federal law banning abortion if that is what you believe is best for our nation.  I don't.  We should be working to provide help to those that seek abortions so that they might choose not to.  We shouldn't be working to put women in jail.  Also, I hear no discussion from you about the man that got the woman pregnant.  Does the man get off free with no legal punishment in your world.  Your sure seem ready to throw women in jail under your beliefs.  Why aren't you advocating for the man that got the woman pregnant who seeks an abortion from going to jail if there is an abortion?  Just remember, if you ban legal abortion in a world that doesn't hold your religious beliefs, then you are saying you want to treat women who have abortions as killers and put them in jail.  I really doubt that is what God wants.  From my study He wants us to teach the world His gospel through example as well as proselyting by the means suggested on D&C 4 which says nothing about putting people in jail who don't follow your religious beliefs.  Even the Church supports forgiveness to those who had abortions before  and after baptism per the handbook.

 

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If that "something" was slavery, would you still say this?  After all, "a significant part of the country" wanted to keep it "legal."

Yes if the will of the majority of the nation was for slavery.  Once again, look at the Church you believe in.  Did it ever fight against slavery prior to the civil war?  Which side did it choose?  The one that preserved the nation.  What did the Church do with civil rights for blacks?  Followed the will of the people until that will changed.  If the majority of the nation still supported limiting the rights of blacks, do you really think the Church would have changed its stance on blacks and the priesthood.   The Church followed the will of the nation when it came to polygamy.  The Church follows the will of communist nations, nations with national religions and every other type of government.  The Church has never favored enforcing its religious beliefs over the law of the land.

 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect an "argument from the margins" is afoot.

I'm happy to hear it.  But you're arguing from the margins.  Do you realize that?

I think you're quite off.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

But the poor women in Texas have already had to endure trials over the new bill. https://www.thelily.com/the-texas-abortion-ban-has-a-medical-exception-but-some-doctors-worry-its-too-narrow-to-use/

Edited December 2, 2021 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect an "argument from the margins" is afoot.

I'm happy to hear it.  But you're arguing from the margins.  Do you realize that?

I think you're quite off.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything because it doesn't follow US legal procedure.