Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[Danzo]

Most of the controversial supreme court decisions are not controversial because what  is decided, they are more about who decides.

As seen on this thread, most pro abortion posters have a lot of nuance about what abortions to allow (how far along, etc) and most anti abortion posters have a lot of nuance about what abortions to allow (Maternal health, rape, incest, fetal defect, etc)

The big problem with Roe, it that the court tried to take a complex question on the administration of medical care to pregnant women and distil it to a rule that didn't go through a committee and could not be altered by anyone other than a different group of unelected Judges.  

By taking the matter out of the hands of the legislate, input from people is reduced to people jumping up and down waving signs instead of people having discussions with their representatives who can take into account and be informed in their decisions by various experts.

I know of no serious legal scholar who defends Roe on legal grounds, it was poorly written and the only reason it is still around is that so many people agree with it on policy grounds.   

In general, policies, especially ones as complex as topic should not be decided by courts. Policy is for legislatures.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am not talking about "life" in general.   I am talking specifically about human beings.  Human life.   The genesis of a human being is at conception.  That fully and completely homo-sapient entity never changes its entity.   I am not even talking about rights at this point.  I am simply addressing your push back on me calling a fetus a human being.  We don't need to de-humanize them to have this conversation.  Let's acknowledge them for what they are first.   They deserve at least that. 

I'm talking about human genetiic codes with the general capacity to make an inidividuated human life if it's allowed to play out and there's nothing glitchy. See my response to raingirl for mor on that. To me a human becoming is not a human being. I'm not willing to over personify them. It honestly annoys me and has personally effected my life recently. Along with what I mentioned in the post to raingirl, I would add that I have still not told my mother that I had a miscarriage. My mom miscarried twice, both super early and once in a manner that sounds exactly like my blighted ovum. She openly and wistfully wonders about maybe having 2 children up in heaven. I say maybe because she's a stream-of-concious talker and will usually admit not fully knowing, just wondering. Because she believes very similarly to you on this. I don't. I didn't and still don't have the energy to have someone's other beliefs placed on my recuperating body. To have her wistfully try to tell me about a baby I don't believe in. A blastula is not a human being. You can believe it, my mother can believe it. I don't. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I like terms that have scientifically objective biological markers or means of identification.  That is why I abhor the term "personhood".  Personhood is not a stage of biological development.  It is a fluid and nebulous made up term that can be manipulated however one desires to control, and hold power over other human beings and entities.  Historically, denying personhood to other humans has been a means to control and manipulate - personhood has been used to deny rights to slaves, women, children, Jews, and other foreigners.  It has also been used to grant rights to corporations, labor organizations, partnerships, etc.  So, when a corporation can be a person, while another human-being is not considered a person.  I sense corruption in the term.   The term is a tool, period.  A human-being is more than a tool.   So, when society gives more moral value and weight when it comes to decisions of life and death to personhood (which has no biological or spiritual foundation or basis for it) over human nature, then I think we have all been played.  

There is nothing sacred to me about personhood.   Human life on the other hand, is something I hold sacred and worthy of protecting.  

I pointed out an article clearly using objective science and biological markers to point out why we don't know when a human is fully human. Just because our technical jargon sucks, doesn't mean there isn't an important distinction. Just because we've made poor decisions on human value doesn't mean that all human distinctions are now null and void. 

To me life is sacred. All life. Everywhere. From my plants to my pets to my kid to the biome living in my intestinal track. They come together in a complex web of existence. On that is both robust and easily harmed. When in balance it is glorious and brings joy. I don't set aside my spiritual beliefs when I state that early developmental stages are more human potential than human being. I recognize that they are also life. I Just don't believe that the life of a single blastula is equivalent to that of a single newborn. I base this also in science...my interpretation of that data just strongly differs from yours.

 

With luv,

BD  

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2022 at 12:55 AM, sunstoned said:

How many babies did he kill in the flood?

And at Jesus's death somewhere in the Americas?

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Most of the controversial supreme court decisions are not controversial because what  is decided, they are more about who decides.

As seen on this thread, most pro abortion posters have a lot of nuance about what abortions to allow (how far along, etc) and most anti abortion posters have a lot of nuance about what abortions to allow (Maternal health, rape, incest, fetal defect, etc)

The big problem with Roe, it that the court tried to take a complex question on the administration of medical care to pregnant women and distil it to a rule that didn't go through a committee and could not be altered by anyone other than a different group of unelected Judges.  

By taking the matter out of the hands of the legislate, input from people is reduced to people jumping up and down waving signs instead of people having discussions with their representatives who can take into account and be informed in their decisions by various experts.

I know of no serious legal scholar who defends Roe on legal grounds, it was poorly written and the only reason it is still around is that so many people agree with it on policy grounds.   

In general, policies, especially ones as complex as topic should not be decided by courts. Policy is for legislatures.

In a saner climate I would agree with you. In these days of abortion bounties and death sentences for abortions overturning this is bad. After all the recently appointed Supreme Court Justices said repeatedly that they supported the Rowe precedent it has also cost the Supreme Court a lot of what was left of its legitimacy.

[MustardSeed]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And at Jesus's death somewhere in the Americas?

This is why I don’t interpret scriptures as literal events.  I do not believe that God has killed anyone.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by MustardSeed
A word. To avoid the scrutiny of Karens.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is why I don’t interpret scriptures as literal events.  I do not believe that God has killed anyone.  

So, you don't believe in the story of God killing Bathsheba's son, or God killing all the firstborn in Egypt, or God commanding Joshua to kill all the children and babies in Jericho? How do you reconcile that with the Church teaching these things as literal events?

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In a saner climate I would agree with you. In these days of abortion bounties and death sentences for abortions overturning this is bad. After all the recently appointed Supreme Court Justices said repeatedly that they supported the Rowe precedent it has also cost the Supreme Court a lot of what was left of its legitimacy.

I would say that the insanity of it all was caused by reactions to the roe decision. 

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court has been in decline for many years since they decided to make themselves another legislative policymaking body. 

The supreme court, it turns out isn't well suited to making policy decisions.  

Qualified immunity, Miranda, Roe, Obergefell, Citizens United, Bush v Gore just to name a few.

Lochner, probably started it all.

 

 

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not talking about "life" in general.   I am talking specifically about human beings.  Human life.   The genesis of a human being is at conception.  That fully and completely homo-sapient entity never changes its entity.   I am not even talking about rights at this point.  I am simply addressing your push back on me calling a fetus a human being.  We don't need to de-humanize them to have this conversation.  Let's acknowledge them for what they are first.   They deserve at least that. 

I like terms that have scientifically objective biological markers or means of identification.  That is why I abhor the term "personhood".  Personhood is not a stage of biological development.  It is a fluid and nebulous made up term that can be manipulated however one desires to control, and hold power over other human beings and entities.  Historically, denying personhood to other humans has been a means to control and manipulate - personhood has been used to deny rights to slaves, women, children, Jews, and other foreigners.  It has also been used to grant rights to corporations, labor organizations, partnerships, etc.  So, when a corporation can be a person, while another human-being is not considered a person.  I sense corruption in the term.   The term is a tool, period.  A human-being is more than a tool.   So, when society gives more moral value and weight when it comes to decisions of life and death to personhood (which has no biological or spiritual foundation or basis for it) over human nature, then I think we have all been played.  

There is nothing sacred to me about personhood.   Human life on the other hand, is something I hold sacred and worthy of protecting.  

We’ve also been told in this thread that a miscarriage is not the loss of a baby.  There’s apparently no baby involved in a pregnancy.  That surely must put the lie to the saying “with child”. I guess when people announce their pregnancy by saying “I’m going to have a baby”, they’re simply delusional. And when a couple are grieving after a miscarriage, we should just tell them to suck it up, because there wasn’t any baby involved. 

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm talking about human genetiic codes with the general capacity to make an inidividuated human life if it's allowed to play out and there's nothing glitchy.

I am not talking about genetic code.  The zygote is much more than that.  It is a live, living human organism.  This really isn't argued in biology.   

In biology, there is no such thing as a living entity called a human becoming.  What species is it, exactly?  Biology (the field responsible for identifying species and living organism) has been consistent with when human life begins.  The zygote is not a "genetic code", it is a living human organism.   We are all the same living species and organisms of homeostasis.   Anything else is values based rather than biology based. 

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception." - When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland. Quote from a letter to the Irish Independent.

"Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum to form a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being."
Moore, Keith L., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, page 12, W.B. Saunders Co., 2003

"In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun."
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., 1974

"A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum."
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Pregnancy," page 968, 15th Edition, Chicago 1974

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

[pogi]

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (“the fertilization view”). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a “philosophical or religious belief” (45%) or a “biological and scientific fact” (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human’s life. In the two studies that explored experts’ views on the matter, the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals.

Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts’ views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective—and a recent study’s finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human’s life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions—science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human’s life begins.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3973608

Also of interest to note that:

Quote

The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%).

So, this opinion clearly is not a politically biased one and not persuaded by values.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

We’ve also been told in this thread that a miscarriage is not the loss of a baby.  There’s apparently no baby involved in a pregnancy.  That surely must put the lie to the saying “with child”. I guess when people announce their pregnancy by saying “I’m going to have a baby”, they’re simply delusional.

Notice the future tense. If I have cake batter and put it in the oven and say "I'm going to have cake," It doesn't mean I have cake now. Just the pre-reqs that lead to a cake. 

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

And when a couple are grieving after a miscarriage, we should just tell them to suck it up, because there wasn’t any baby involved. 

Since I'm one saying miscarriage is not necessarily the loss of a baby and that I personally didn't mourn it as such, I can absolutely say with complete certainty that those words have never come out of my mouth. I respect what people feel about the pregnancy, even if it's not what I have felt. I have sat, more than once, with people through the grief of a miscarriage and helped guide them through it. I've brainstormed rituals to remember/find closure for what this experience meant for them. It's that experience that tells me that the grief from a miscarriage is very different from that of a baby. Something I've also sat with....luckily not nearly as often, because the grief was so painful and devastating I found myself heavily crying during and after each session. I'm not a natural crier. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 6, 2022 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I would say that the insanity of it all was caused by reactions to the roe decision. 

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court has been in decline for many years since they decided to make themselves another legislative policymaking body. 

The supreme court, it turns out isn't well suited to making policy decisions.  

Qualified immunity, Miranda, Roe, Obergefell, Citizens United, Bush v Gore just to name a few.

Lochner, probably started it all.

 

 

Wait, this is a return to normalcy?

All right, time to bust out the makeup and go full Joker. It is probably the best way to cope.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, this is a return to normalcy?

All right, time to bust out the makeup and go full Joker. It is probably the best way to cope.

When you use the Court to make legislative decisions, these are the results you get.

The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh away, Blessed be the Supreme Court.

[pogi]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I get that it would be difficult. I know it would be difficult but no one is doing much of anything about it and we don’t lament this holocaust. If 20% of children dropped dead at age 5 and we determined that nothing could be done about it we would still do a lot of mourning. We don’t. We do not collectively agree that a new human life begins at conception because no one treats it like one until the pregnancy is detected.

i get that the embryo isn’t viable but a lot of abortion laws we are throwing out now don’t care either and treat a non-viable fetus as a child. Attempts to put a line down have universally failed at some level.

The lack of emotional attachment to a embryo is not surprising, especially considering that most don't even know that they ever existed.  There is no suffering, no loss of emotional connection or attachment.  Most are not even aware that they existed.  Why would such natural deaths be emotional?  I know that children die every single day in terrible ways.  I am not in a constant state of mourning.  A lot of those deaths are natural causes, which are much easier to accept than intentional killings.  

For me, it is not an argument based on emotional attachments to embryos, it is an argument based on holy respect for all human life and the divine right to it.

There may not be consensus among lay people, but there is overwhelming consensus among biologists - the ones most qualified to speak on the subject.  See my post above. 

The silly thing is that there are other legitimate arguments to be made, dehumanizing them isn't required to be a pro-choicer.  The vast majority of these biologist are pro-choicers, for example, and overwhelmingly agree that the beginning of a human being is at fertilization.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

I am not arguing for or against this commentary (don’t know enough about variations in Jewish culture to know if this is as consistent with their doctrine as it appears to be). What really caught my eye was two things…what they used to identify when the fetus becomes a person/full human being and especially the argument pointing out how anti abortion laws favor some religion over others. I have seen several commentaries saying that having access to abortion is considered a religious necessity by some Jews (to protect the sacredness of life as they define it).

Here’s one commentary that makes the religious discrimination claim clear as well as solid standard of life:

https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf

 

Quote

Do abortion bans unduly favor one religious viewpoint over another? Yes, different religions believe that human life begins at different stages of development. Science can explain developmental timelines, but philosophic and religious viewpoints largely determine what exactly defines “life” or “personhood” for each individual. NCJW believes, as the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees, that no one religion should be enshrined in law or dictate public policy on any issue — including abortion.

Quote

Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception? No, life does not begin at conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water” before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body.

Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured.

 

Quote

 According to Jewish law, is abortion health care? Yes, Jewish sources explicitly state that abortion is not only permitted but is required should the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, “health” is commonly interpreted to encompass psychological health as well as physical health. NCJW advocates for abortion access as an essential component of comprehensive, affordable, confidential, and equitable family planning, reproductive, sexual health, and maternal health services.

 

Quote

What does Jewish law say about the rights of the person who is pregnant and the rights of the fetus? Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount at all stages of pregnancy. A fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law and therefore does not have the same rights as one who is already alive. As such, the interests of the pregnant individual always come before that of the fetus.

Statement from Jewish prolife group:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184580/20210721170924501_41204 pdf Parker.pdf. It pretty much follows Christian religious arguments, life begins at conception.  Includes many statements by Rabbis saying Jewish law says life begins at conception, cites scripture, have not seen challenges of the pro choice rabbi statements. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-leak-brings-jewish-views-on-abortion-back-to-fore/amp/
 

Quote

“What Jewish community would want to continue to live in a place where they are potentially barred from following halacha (Jewish law)?” Ephraim Sherman, an Orthodox Jew and health care professional, wrote in JTA in 2019. “Is a community even allowed by halacha to continue living in such a place?”

Quote

“If anyone tries to argue that abortion restrictions are justified under the prerogative of religious freedom, we can explain that our religious freedom demands that we have access to abortion care when it is needed and wanted,” wrote the rabbi, Rachael Pass

I don’t believe I have paid attention to any religious freedom argument before. 

There are Jewish individuals and groups who lean more prolife, wish to prohibit most, but allow some needed for health of mother.

Quote

Blanket bans on abortion, to be sure, would deprive Jewish women of the ability to act responsibly in cases where abortion is halachically required,” wrote the leader, Rabbi Avi Shafran. “And so, what Orthodox groups like Agudath Israel of America, for which I work, have long promoted is the regulation of abortion through laws that generally prohibit the unjustifiable killing of fetuses while protecting the right to abortion in exceptional cases.”

 

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When you use the Court to make legislative decisions, these are the results you get.

The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh away, Blessed be the Supreme Court.

I am confused. So are you for or against me pumping Joker gas into the court’s ventilation system?

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, rpn said:

And when the Constitution doesn't mention rights, then they aren't protected BY THE CONSTITUTION.   That has always been the fight about Roe v. Wade ---- that the the Supreme Court wanted the outcome and created a right that simply didn't exist. 

I am not a strict originalist and I find that position really rather narrow.  As noted we have many rights that are not mentioned at all in the document.  - 

Thomas Jefferson believed that a country's constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.

https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/206732

 

I think he was right.  How could they have foreseen the world we live in now.

 

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

“A stillborn child are not reported as births or deaths on Church records. It should also be noted, that no temple ordinances are performed in behalf of a stillborn child.

The Church does not take a position about when life begins. That no ordinances are done does not preclude the possibility that ordinances will be needed in the future or that other aspects of divine law are brought to bear that we don't know about. My sister-in-law held a funeral for a stillborn child of hers. The Church did not forbid it. Maybe it was unnecessary as far as potential child was concerned; maybe it was just for the mother. We don't know.

Despite that kind of ignorance and though Church policy doesn't treat elective abortions with the same gravity as, say, murder in the first degree, it is still considered as something quite serious and not to be taken lightly (see General Handbook 32.6.1). Even in the cases where an abortion could potentially be justified (rape or incest, mother's life, non-viability of fetus after birth), the Church asks individuals to specifically receive spiritual confirmation through prayer. "A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, consents to, or encourages an abortion (see 32.6.2.5)." Though the exceptional cases precludes the possibility of a membership council (presumably even in cases where the mother acted contrary to spiritual promptings -- the Church isn't going to go about second guessing every instance).

The point being, that Church records are not kept is not ultimately relevant to the issue of whether or not God views abortion as a non-issue of little moral relevancy.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I still don't like the term.  Why is it given so much legal weight? Why do we need this legal tool. 

Because many laws require a specific definition pertaining to a person.  For example, the Utah Criminal Code defines "Person" as "an individual, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association."  "Human being" would exclude legal entities like corporations and partnerships (which can commit some crimes).  So we need a word that can be clinically defined.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I may be ignorant on law, but from my layman's perspective, I think the law unnecessarily over-complicates things sometimes and we loose a lot because of it.

You work in the medical field, correct?  Medicine necessarily involves technical terms that have precise meanings, right?  So while a laymen may say "I broke my wrist," a professional in the field may use a term like "distal radius fracture."  Nothing wrong with either term, right?  But there are circumstances in which the latter is required (medical records, insurance claims, etc.).

The same goes for the law.  Sometimes particularized and precise terms are necessary.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It is literally a made up term with absolutely no biological or spiritual foundation to it. 

Well, not quite.  Animals are not "persons."  Human beings are.  Biology is clearly part of the equation.  As for a "spiritual foundation," I concede the point.  The law can't really quantify such things, and so does not need to define things in a "spiritual" way.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It is whatever the heck we want it to be. 

Broadly speaking, technical legal terms are often rooted in normative definitions.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Legislators get to decide for us, not nature, not spiritual law...a group of people I don't trust one bit gets to decide what  a person is. 

A group of people you can influence, though.  I group of people that are answerable to their constituencies.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

There is no method or means to falsify it, because it is not something that can be observed in nature. 

You're tilting at windmills a bit.  Statutory definitions are generally pretty clear and sensible.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

And yet this made up thing caries with it incredible power. 

As Thor put it, "All words are made up."  Society creates words all the time.  Nothing wrong with this.  Legislatures often need to take a word or concept and define it in a particular way.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Why should a made up term that no one can agree upon carry so much power, while some actual physical human beings are granted no power or right to life.  That seems wrong to me.

By "some actual physical human beings are granted no power or right to life" are you referring to unborn children?

I'm not sure what your complaint is here.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

In that there is no objective foundation, scientific or otherwise, and that the term varies from state to state, from nation to nation, and from culture to culture, it remains very fluid and nebulous from a holistic perspective. 

Hence the value of legislatures creating a statutory definition for important terms.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

There is nothing eternal or non-fluid about codified law either.  Why don't they just base our rights on objective scientific facts of humaness?

Whether unborn children are "persons" under the law is not a purely scientific question.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The idea is that basically anything can be a person if legislators or judges agree upon it and codify it into law.  ANYTHING. 

In the real world, not really.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

People who probably know little to nothing about human biology, human development, get to decide which humans are person's and which are not.

And yet most of the time statutory definitions are pretty coherent.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

There is nothing objective which states that animals can't be persons.  Nothing states that AI can't be persons. 

Persons under the law, yes.  But legislatures are answerable to their constituencies, yes?  And answerable to the Constitution as well?

2 hours ago, pogi said:

There are literally no foundational objective guidelines that we can observe to determine what is and what is not a person in nature. 

We are speaking, however, of persons under the law.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Legally, anything can be a person though, if a few humans decide to exclude other humans from personhood and include other non-human entities. 

Well, not really.  The only exception to this is is unborn babies, and the precise timing by which they are recognized as persons under the law.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am sure that as it is entrenched into our law, it is too late to dissect it out and that it must therefore be addressed. I get that.  But I don't like it.  I really, really don't like it.  From a biological, spiritual, and moral perspective, it is garbage term that doesn't exist in nature.  Why it should be a point of consideration in deciding if it is right and moral for a human to live or be killed is beyond me.

"It" (as in "Why it should be a point of consideration") is unclear to me.  What are you referencing here?

The great tension in the law is between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother as to bodily autonomy.  Roe did a very poor job of trying to balance these.  It was an incoherent mess.  Now legislatures will have the opportunity to work on laws that address these issues.  Fifty state legislatures.  Fifty little incubators for different legal approaches.  At one extreme we have California and their nigh-unto-and-possibly-even-including-infanticide regime.  At the other extreme, we have at least eleven states which have passed "no exception" laws:

Quote

Republicans were largely dismissive when, in 2019, a small group of extreme anti-abortion activists called on the party to reconsider its “decades-old” view that laws restricting abortion in the US ought to exempt victims of rape and incest.

It simply went too far, the party’s House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, argued at the time, to support absolute abortion bans that did not offer protection to women and girls who had been raped or were the victims of incest.

But there has been a sea change in Republican thinking since then.

At least 11 US states – including Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas – have passed legislation that bans abortion without any such exceptions. 
...
While most of the laws have been blocked by US courts for now, the expected reversal of Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the US, would almost immediately, or as soon as practical, put the bans into effect.

 

These account for a tiny percentage of abortions in the U.S., so I'm not sure we ought to look to the margins and craft a legislative solution from there.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Speaking of making animals persons, it has already happened.  The Spanish Parliament ruled that apes are legal persons.  It is too messy and I don't see any justifiable.  And what is there to stop them?  Nothing. 

Legislatures are, in the end, answerable to their constituencies.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

How can you corrupt a term that is made up and malleable to the culture you live in?  It only has meaning because we give it meaning.  It doesn't exist in nature.  It is not something sacred that is worthy of protecting.  Humans, on the other hand are. 

Groups of humans are also "sacred" and "worthy of protecting."  Religious groups, for example, are "persons" under the law.

Are you sure you want to jettison this word?

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not a strict originalist and I find that position really rather narrow.  As noted we have many rights that are not mentioned at all in the document.  - 

Thomas Jefferson believed that a country's constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.

https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/206732

 

I think he was right.  How could they have foreseen the world we live in now.

 

Jefferson believed a lot of things, and he wasn't particularly open about a lot of it. He was given to hiding his true beliefs during arguments or negotiations, always trying to get other participants to fully lay their cards on the table before he made any commitments. The 3rd President was a gifted author and orator, but one could never really be sure what he actually believed just from talking to him. Often his stated positions were coy hypotheticals designed to move the conversation in whatever direction he wanted.

Jefferson was, however, utterly idealistic when it came to the Vox Populi. He was about as anti-establishmentarian as one got in that age, and he was by far the most radical of the Founders in that respect. He was the right man to author the deconstruction of a political relationship (the Declaration of Independence), but his ideas on how to build a new government in its place were almost uniformly rejected. It was believed among the Federalists (Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, etc.) that a government designed by Jefferson probably wouldn't last a year. He didn't worry about political turmoil at all. Chaos was merely the handmaid of his vision...at least until the ideologue from Monticello became president and actually had to hold the country together. 

We have the ability to amend the Constitution. I think the country would not have made it this far if we had gone much further in Jefferson's direction (especially not if you sunset-clause the Constitution.) Dude's always been crazy overrated if you ask me. 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

so I'm not sure we ought to look to the margins and craft a legislative solution from there.

Isn’t there a risk of ignoring important exceptions if you don’t include the margins?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

so I'm not sure we ought to look to the margins and craft a legislative solution from there.

Isn’t there a risk of ignoring important exceptions if you don’t include the margins?

Yes.  I am not saying we should ignore the margins, just that we not legislate from there.  I think the legislatures should pass laws of general application that pertain to elective abortions generally, and also include exceptions for "in the margins" circumstances (rape, incest, life of the mother).

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Because many laws require a specific definition pertaining to a person.  For example, the Utah Criminal Code defines "Person" as "an individual, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association."  "Human being" would exclude legal entities like corporations and partnerships (which can commit some crimes).  So we need a word that can be clinically defined.

You work in the medical field, correct?  Medicine necessarily involves technical terms that have precise meanings, right?  So while a laymen may say "I broke my wrist," a professional in the field may use a term like "distal radius fracture."  Nothing wrong with either term, right?  But there are circumstances in which the latter is required (medical records, insurance claims, etc.).

The same goes for the law.  Sometimes particularized and precise terms are necessary.

Well, not quite.  Animals are not "persons."  Human beings are.  Biology is clearly part of the equation.  As for a "spiritual foundation," I concede the point.  The law can't really quantify such things, and so does not need to define things in a "spiritual" way.

Broadly speaking, technical legal terms are often rooted in normative definitions.

A group of people you can influence, though.  I group of people that are answerable to their constituencies.

You're tilting at windmills a bit.  Statutory definitions are generally pretty clear and sensible.

As Thor put it, "All words are made up."  Society creates words all the time.  Nothing wrong with this.  Legislatures often need to take a word or concept and define it in a particular way.  

By "some actual physical human beings are granted no power or right to life" are you referring to unborn children?

I'm not sure what your complaint is here.  

Hence the value of legislatures creating a statutory definition for important terms.

Whether unborn children are "persons" under the law is not a purely scientific question.

In the real world, not really.

And yet most of the time statutory definitions are pretty coherent.

Persons under the law, yes.  But legislatures are answerable to their constituencies, yes?  And answerable to the Constitution as well?

We are speaking, however, of persons under the law.

Well, not really.  The only exception to this is is unborn babies, and the precise timing by which they are recognized as persons under the law.

"It" (as in "Why it should be a point of consideration") is unclear to me.  What are you referencing here?

The great tension in the law is between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother as to bodily autonomy.  Roe did a very poor job of trying to balance these.  It was an incoherent mess.  Now legislatures will have the opportunity to work on laws that address these issues.  Fifty state legislatures.  Fifty little incubators for different legal approaches.  At one extreme we have California and their nigh-unto-and-possibly-even-including-infanticide regime.  At the other extreme, we have at least eleven states which have passed "no exception" laws:

These account for a tiny percentage of abortions in the U.S., so I'm not sure we ought to look to the margins and craft a legislative solution from there.

Legislatures are, in the end, answerable to their constituencies.

Groups of humans are also "sacred" and "worthy of protecting."  Religious groups, for example, are "persons" under the law.

Are you sure you want to jettison this word?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, I still don't like its use if it is intended to be separate and distinct from what is biologically accepted as a human being.  I can't tell you how many arguments I have been in where people argue - "ya it is a human, but it is not a person, so therefore it doesn't deserve the same rights".  As if somehow this legal definition of some made up entity has more value than human life!   It is the same argument that has historically been used against slaves and women, and the same unfathomable disgrace is being used against unborn humans.  It ain't right.     

Instead of saying that religious groups, corporations, etc, etc, etc, are protected with rights and potential liable for crimes as persons, why don't we simply make law that states that religious institutions and corporations etc. may be protected with rights and tried under the law for crimes in the same way that persons aka humans are?  It seems silly to stretch the normative use of a word to make law applicable to certain other entities, and define it in a way which doesn't include every stage of human development.  That to me is still not plane sense. 

Quote

The great tension in the law is between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother as to bodily autonomy.  Roe did a very poor job of trying to balance these.  It was an incoherent mess.  Now legislatures will have the opportunity to work on laws that address these issues.  Fifty state legislatures.  Fifty little incubators for different legal approaches.  At one extreme we have California and their nigh-unto-and-possibly-even-including-infanticide regime.  At the other extreme, we have at least eleven states which have passed "no exception" laws:

That demonstrates the mess I am talking about.  It will in large part be based on each of their definition of "personhood" vs the bodily autonomy of women, which if not guided by biological principles will be a mess that will lead to unjustifiable killings of innocent human beings because some people don't define them as "persons".  That's really what it boils down to in the end.  Each state and each country will have different definitions of what a person is (some including apes) while biologists worldwide will all agree that human life begins at fertilization.  So, wouldn't it be smart to listen to the biologists on this one?  Simple.  Clear.  Straight forward.  Nearly universally accepted by those who know what they are talking about. 

Legislators are hardly answerable to their constituents.  They do whatever they want while in power.  After several years of damage, they may get voted out, but they will likely never answer for all the mess they made while in office. Their legal messy legacy left behind may not be so easy to just vote out.  It is much easier to create law than change it.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by pogi

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

The Church does not take a position about when life begins. That no ordinances are done does not preclude the possibility that ordinances will be needed in the future or that other aspects of divine law are brought to bear that we don't know about. My sister-in-law held a funeral for a stillborn child of hers. The Church did not forbid it. Maybe it was unnecessary as far as potential child was concerned; maybe it was just for the mother. We don't know.

Despite that kind of ignorance and though Church policy doesn't treat elective abortions with the same gravity as, say, murder in the first degree, it is still considered as something quite serious and not to be taken lightly (see General Handbook 32.6.1). Even in the cases where an abortion could potentially be justified (rape or incest, mother's life, non-viability of fetus after birth), the Church asks individuals to specifically receive spiritual confirmation through prayer. "A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, consents to, or encourages an abortion (see 32.6.2.5)." Though the exceptional cases precludes the possibility of a membership council (presumably even in cases where the mother acted contrary to spiritual promptings -- the Church isn't going to go about second guessing every instance).

The point being, that Church records are not kept is not ultimately relevant to the issue of whether or not God views abortion as a non-issue of little moral relevancy.

I think the point is we don’t know.
I also posted the church’s full statement on abortions early in this thread. I think it’s now about 500 post in the past.😂