SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, BRMC said:

This is the part that makes zero sense to me.  A baby at 9 months must be delivered, dead or alive.  That delivery is surgical or natural.   In either case, why must the baby be killed first?

She may have been sick herself as a dead fetus can kill more than a twin due to infection, etc.  Both a cesarean and an induced vaginal delivery could have serious consequences in those cases.  Removing the babies with minimal stress on her body sounds like it was necessary.

[BRMC]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

She may have been sick herself as a dead fetus can kill more than a twin due to infection, etc.  Both a cesarean and an induced vaginal delivery could have serious consequences in those cases.  Removing the babies with minimal stress on her body sounds like it was necessary.

Either a cesarean or induced vaginal delivery has to happen whether the baby is dead or alive.  

[halconero]

FWIW this particular conversation has stuck with me for a while:

"Trust in a Polarized Age," on the Model Citizen podcast. It's a conversation between two best friends from college, now a pro-life Christian political philosopher at Bowling and pro-choice atheist policy wonk at Niskanen Center. Among other things, they dive into the abortion debate in a way I didn't expect. Namely, they think the increasing function of SCOTUS as a quasi-super-legislature is making things worse than they have to be, and in this case the pro-choice atheist argues that striking down R v. Wade might not be the doomsday scenario pro-choice advocates think it is.
 

In fact, once access to abortion is at risk a lot of women who are traditionally pro-life tend to start lobbying for exceptions, even in places like Mississippi. They point to places like Germany, Northern Ireland, and other places in Europe where constitutional courts threw abortion to the legislatures in order to reconcile rights of the mother to bodily autonomy with rights to life for the unborn child.
 

The result is an abortion framework and associated policies that restrict abortion in a number of ways, while granting latitude, and effectively depolarizing the issue.

Polling on abortion consistently shows that most Americans are "abortion moderates," and podcast hosts make the case for democracy as a "problem solving" tool that would result in some sort of stable equilibrium - restricting its scope, but making allowances based on age of viability and circumstance of the pregnancy.

Anyways, I highly recommend it as a listen.

Edited December 3, 2021 by halconero

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

This is the part that makes zero sense to me.  A baby at 9 months must be delivered, dead or alive.  That delivery is surgical or natural.   In either case, why must the baby be killed first?

because of the decomp from the other baby so they had to terminate the other baby, I guess they figure it wouldn't live anyways

[BRMC]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

because of the decomp from the other baby so they had to terminate the other baby, I guess they figure it wouldn't live anyways

"Figured it wouldn't live".  See, in my mind that doesn't warrant an execution.  

[rongo]

It's interesting to compare the "tea leaf" reading and analysis from both sides of this. Both sides appear to think that the arguments and justice questions and comments lean to the outcome that they want. I think that it is impossible to predict how the swing justices are going to vote, and it won't be a compromise ruling that kicks the can down the road. Many people are going to be upset, no matter which way the court rules. 

Liberal analysis: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/01/supreme-court-abortion-523637

Conservative analysis: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/the-best-exchanges-from-the-supreme-courts-abortion-argument/

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, BRMC said:

"Figured it wouldn't live".  See, in my mind that doesn't warrant an execution.  

well, you you weren't there and professional people who know about these issues determined so, it wasn't an "execution" besides. Like it says in the Book of Mormon it's better one man should perish than a whole nation, sometimes those are the decisions you have to make in life. Nothing was done without her consent anyways is why she called the Bishop because she thought she would be exed and the Bishop told her of all things you are facing right now that shouldn't even be on the radar screen

in my country a Dr. can refuse to perform an abortion without penalization

Edited December 2, 2021 by Duncan

[smac97]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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. 
...
The peace and preservation of the nation is more important than imposing your religious beliefs on others if the majority feel otherwise. 
...
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.
...
The Church has never favored enforcing its religious beliefs over the law of the land.

(Emphases added.)

Putting aside, for the moment, the substantial mischaracterization (I never made a religious argument, and in fact repeatedly noted that abortion is not solely or per se a religious issue), I just came across a video that does a pretty good job of addressing what Kim tries to do here, which is to push religious people out of the public square:

Six minutes.  Worth the time.  The key points made:

1. All laws legislate someone's moral beliefs.

2. Not all beliefs are necessarily "religious" beliefs.

3. Since all people legislate their moral beliefs, no people should be excluded from the public policy process.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

well, you you weren't there and professional people who know about these issues determined so, it wasn't an "execution" besides. Like it says in the Book of Mormon it's better one man should perish than a whole nation, sometimes those are the decisions you have to make in life. Nothing was done without her consent anyways is why she called the Bishop because she thought she would be exed and the Bishop told her of all things you are facing right now that shouldn't even be on the radar screen

I wasn't there, but that doesn't mean I need to trust the doctors to decide.   There are plenty of doctors that think there is nothing wrong with partially birth a baby then killing it for convenience.  It was an execution.  A person was alive, then someone intentionally kill him/her.  
 

I don't think the Book of Mormon was suggesting we should kill somebody because they might die anyway.  A nation wasn't going to perish because a child was given a chance at life.  

[bluebell]

11 hours 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.

If she was term, why did they have to kill the other baby? It would have been ready to be delivered anyway and, at term, should have be born and survived just like any baby that goes to term.

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If she was term, why did they have to kill the other baby? It would have been ready to be delivered anyway and, at term, should have be born and survived just like any baby that goes to term.

at that point, it was being poisoned and It doesn't sound like it was going to live due to everything going on

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

all in the day of delivery, well she couldn't and both died due the other's death. One died on its own and the other had to be terminated sadly

I'm not doubting you at all, it's just a really odd story.  I can understand a full term baby dying under such circumstances, but I don't know why they would need to actually kill a full-term baby to save the mother.  Especially with c-sections and induced birth being available.  If you can get a dead full term baby out of the mother (which they had to have done or the mother would have died) then it's hard to think of a reason that you couldn't get a live one out.  

I'm guessing we probably don't know the particulars that would make this make sense.  That's fine.

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I wasn't there, but that doesn't mean I need to trust the doctors to decide.   There are plenty of doctors that think there is nothing wrong with partially birth a baby then killing it for convenience.  It was an execution.  A person was alive, then someone intentionally kill him/her.  
 

I don't think the Book of Mormon was suggesting we should kill somebody because they might die anyway.  A nation wasn't going to perish because a child was given a chance at life.  

well, if it isn't you and it isn't the Drs. who would you trust to make these decisions? we have differing opinions of what an execution is. You should talk to Nephi about his experience with Laban then

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm not doubting you at all, it's just a really odd story.  I can understand a full term baby dying under such circumstances, but I don't know why they would need to actually kill a full-term baby to save the mother.  Especially with c-sections and induced birth being available.  If you can get a dead full term baby out of the mother (which they had to have done or the mother would have died) then it's hard to think of a reason that you couldn't get a live one out.  

I'm guessing we probably don't know the particulars that would make this make sense.  That's fine.

Glad I am not a Dr. and having to deal with these issues!

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

This is one of the reasons I'm actually pro-overturning Roe.  I don't really like how this Texas law works but the only reason it exists is because of Roe.  If Row gets overturned, then this law can go away and Texas (and other states) can have better discussion over abortion.

Another reason I'm pro-overturning Roe is that it has had an unintended side affect of reducing the research into life-saving devices for premature babies.  Since Casey ruled that viability is the limit for abortion, anything that pushes viability back hurts the pro-abortion cause.  So creating a device that would help 20 week babies, 15 week babies, etc is anti-abortion and has a hard time getting funding and people because it would push back the viability date and allow abortion at earlier weeks.

CFR....I'm really curious about this and have tried 3-4 differently worded searches to find info on this and can't find anything. I admit I'm a little skeptical.

My gut notes that the us is one of only a very few wealthy countries that have the viability clause...which means this would only apply to research in the US and other countries would likely not have the same problem with this. 

My other response is that much of the problem is just how big of a leap it would take technologically to have a fetus live outside a woman at this point without something like an artificial womb. The younger you go in development the more likely you're going to run into serious problems that comes when you pull out an unfinished human. For example, before 18 weeks, baby doesn't have fully formed skin and after that the skin is so thin that it's translucent. Even within the accepted window of viability, it's still a gamble that an infant will survive and then also survive without health issues. There's nothing hindering research in the 22-24 week range, but there are still big chances a baby will not survive in this window.

My last point of skepticism  is that several states have laws that allow abortion well past viability...so there's nothing really hindering them since their laws don't hinge on viability anyways. 

But if you've read something specifically tying the two subjects, I'd be interested in seeing it. 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

at that point, it was being poisoned and It doesn't sound like it was going to live due to everything going on

It does seem weird to decide to kill a baby, because it might not live anyway.  On it's own, that's hard to argue. 

I'm thinking there must be more information that we just don't have.  I'm sure it was a horrible situation for the mom and dad and that God is more than capable of sorting it out without my input (especially an input that has very little of the information needed to form a valid opinion).

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It does seem weird to decide to kill a baby, because it might not live anyway.  On it's own, that's hard to argue. 

I'm thinking there must be more information that we just don't have.  I'm sure it was a horrible situation for the mom and dad and that God is more than capable of sorting it out without my input (especially an input that has very little of the information needed to form a valid opinion).

She shared this within the last ten years? and so I am probably forgetting something and/or she didn't go into every detail

[BRMC]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

well, if it isn't you and it isn't the Drs. who would you trust to make these decisions? we have differing opinions of what an execution is. You should talk to Nephi about his experience with Laban then

So your argument has shifted to "God commanded you to kill this baby"?

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, BRMC said:

So your argument has shifted to "God commanded you to kill this baby"?

Hardly

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Hardly

Ok.  I'm not following your position then or how Laban fits into it.  Could you explain?

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Ok.  I'm not following your position then or how Laban fits into it.  Could you explain?

It was the spirit who told Nephi to kill Laban because it's better then one person should perish than a whole nation, just like it's better to kill one baby to save the life of another, aka the mother. I am not worried about the either baby anyways, little children will be saved anyways-how that will all be I have no idea. In this situation that was what was determined by people involved and whether we agree with it or not we can't go back and change it.

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

It was the spirit who told Nephi to kill Laban because it's better then one person should perish than a whole nation, just like it's better to kill one baby to save the life of another, aka the mother. I am not worried about the either baby anyways, little children will be saved anyways-how that will all be I have no idea. In this situation that was what was determined by people involved and whether we agree with it or not we can't go back and change it.

I agree that we can't go back and change it, I just don't want it to be accepted.  

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I agree that we can't go back and change it, I just don't want it to be accepted.  

life isn't so black and white and it's not so cut and dried

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

well, if it isn't you and it isn't the Drs. who would you trust to make these decisions? we have differing opinions of what an execution is. You should talk to Nephi about his experience with Laban then

Hopefully you’re not equating the divinely mandated execution of a murderous organized crime boss with a mother choosing to take the life of her innocent unborn baby?

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Hopefully you’re not equating the divinely mandated execution of a murderous organized crime boss with a mother choosing to take the life of her innocent unborn baby?

if you bother to read what I said then you won't come to that conclusion

That mother wouldn't willingly take the life of her unborn baby if she had the choice, but she didn't-it wasn't her fault, it wasn't the Drs. It wasn't anyone's fault

Edited December 2, 2021 by Duncan