Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For this reason, I’m suggesting our proposals need to consider how they would affect us as if we were the Posterity, taking into account what we are willing to do ourselves [if that is a moral value].

Well I for one am grateful I came into a home with parents that planned for me, wanted me, and were ready for me. I think that has given me so many advantages in this life that it’s hard to fully enumerate them. YMMV. 

[BlueDreams]

On 5/17/2022 at 10:07 AM, pogi said:

Low numbers in third trimester is kind of a moot point for me.  The fact that it happens at all beyond 20 weeks and is legal without boundaries is the problem I see - and it seems we are in some agreement there.  

I was talking mainly of the low numbers for the scare image I've seen used to paint the open legality laws as "being able to abort a baby till the moment it crowns." Though I have serious concerns about this law, from all accounts that I can find, that's simply not what's happening. As I've mentioned more than once, i'm a stickler for accuracy. I want as accurate information being used when decided what should happen on the legal front. 

But yes, for the most part I've never been a fan for open ended abortions, especially once sentience becomes more and more likely (sidenote: I find the gestational age for some form of wakefulness kinda all over the place online...some say 3rd trimester some say late 2nd). 

On 5/17/2022 at 10:07 AM, pogi said:

This is why there needs to be clear guidelines.   If the federal government is going to be involved in this, it is going to be to protect the right to life of the mother and viable fetus and not to guide medical practice otherwise.  Abortion is soon to be no longer protected as a right by the federal government - so convenience abortions are not going to be protected by the federal government.  The only way that the federal government can get involved and regulate late term abortions is via protecting the right to life.

Yeah, I'm missing some logical steps that gets to this conclusion. It's not the one I fully have.

On 5/17/2022 at 10:07 AM, pogi said:

I think choice should be limited based on the right to life of the human being (in biological terms) in whatever stage of development it is in.  But I think 20 weeks or later has better chance of getting anywhere.  Either way, people with Downs syndrome lack neither viability nor personhood (whatever the heck that is). 

I've already mentioned the 3 points that inform my position on this topic. Post 20 weeks is a more obtainable goal where most will agree on it. BUT I personally would like to see that coupled with better preventative measures pre-pregnancy, better availability and access for all forms of services, including abortion in early pregnancy. This is tied to what I find potentially justifiable as well as being unwilling to force, whether directly or indirectly, a woman to remain pregnant if there's a reasonable means for them to not. 

On 5/17/2022 at 10:07 AM, pogi said:

It is not that I particularly trust the government, it is that I have known too many doctors...  There are two sides to this coin of trust.  

Ironically, I'm more concerned about doctors failing women in healthcare practices dealing with pregnancy/labor and delivery than anything else. I've witnessed way too many stories of women's health concerns going unmet. The stats and current medical practices have led to a steady increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes, and indicate that there's more at risk with women's health from pregnancy than their is abortion. I 

On 5/17/2022 at 10:07 AM, pogi said:

First, the 10th amendment suggests that federal government has no business in overseeing medical practice in the US as it not a right but a privilege granted by states through their elected representatives.  Every state has at least one state medical board which provides the legal boundaries of practice for the state.   So, again, this is not something the federal government can provide legislation on in terms of medical practice and care - what it can provide is protections in relation to the right to life. The right to life is federally protected and regulated, not medical practice. 

This is strongly debateable on several fronts. But I'm not one to debate the nitty gritty of legal precedent and federal government guidelines. It likely isn't suprising that I would prefer medical practice in general have basic national standards that need to be met. It seems contradictory to me to insist the constitution is about protecting life and then not assuring basic expectations from an institution meant to specifically protect and save lives. 

On 5/17/2022 at 10:07 AM, pogi said:

 Those protections to life have to be specific.  Who has a right to live and why?  Do people with Downs syndrome have less of a right to life than other people?  Of course not.  Do they have a terminal condition or are they a risk to life for the mother? Nope.  They deserve equal protection under the law.  

Specific to a degree. Most the constitution at this point is interpreted. Some are loosely applied, some are more specific. I don't see there being an obvious guideline in law saying there must be specific or vague protections. As I mentioned, I'd rather have federal law give a baseline/parameter of protections and states be able to have some flexibility in implementing them based on their specific stat needs or desires. For example a baseline of  "abortion services post 20 weeks for severe health concerns for mothers or fetus is legal" Different states can decide whether they interpret that more restrictively or loosely as to what is considered severe.

Again, a person who does not live via another person has every right to life (barring extreme scenarios). A fetus/embryo does not have that inherent right. And for me the question isn't does a person with DS have a right to life, it's does a potential person with DS have an absolute right to be born, even if the parents (let's say earlier on, since testing can and does occur as early as 10 weeks) cannot care for them and our social supports for said families are often weak or inconsistent? If too many people choose abortion with DS, do we inherently lose something as a society by not having DS as commonly found in our communities? This leaves to really hairy ethical/social questions that I won't pretend to have the best answer to. This article captured a lot of my concern and ambiguity around this, though it's focused on Denmark (where they do have far better medical supports and the pressure is less on families who take this on). I'm weighing this not on a singular prioritized moral imperative, but at least 3 baseline ones mixed with at least 2-4 social implications that I'm trying to find balance on. I wish I could simplify this to a single one: life or choice, where the exceptions to ones prioritized moral code are few. It must be nice to be able to. But I can't and won't. 

 

*** for the record, in general post 20, I'd prefer DS not be a reason for abortion as it's not a severe enough abnormality. Pre 20....I'd still prefer it not happen solely for that, but I'm unsure it's ethical (within my moral framework) to insist on that either... and with things like IVF I think a parent has every right to screen out genetic disorders that would include significant impairment. As I mentioned, I've contemplated that option for myself and am very open to it and the version of disorder my daughter has is far less severe than DS in many ways. So I prefer not to be a hypocrite. 

 

With luv

BD

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well I for one am grateful I came into a home with parents that planned for me, wanted me, and were ready for me. I think that has given me so many advantages in this life that it’s hard to fully enumerate them. YMMV. 

That is a wonderful sentiment, but I hope you go eventually address the entire post in context. You willingness may vary!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

That is a wonderful sentiment, but I hope you go eventually address the entire post in context. You willingness may vary!

I will address after you lay out your own view point on the matter. 

[Rivers]

It is my observation that most people fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to this issue. There are two extreme positions. One is that life begins at conception and ending that life is murder with no exception. The other is that there should be no legal restrictions on abortion at all.  
 

Most people feel a line should be drawn somewhere during a pregnancy, but can’t agree on where.

[Danzo]

On 5/16/2022 at 6:35 PM, BlueDreams said:

due to their very specific nature I would not be okay with super specific bills that regulate too much what that means.

Be careful what you wish for.  When a bill or a piece of legislation is not specific and is vague, what you are really doing is leaving it up to a prosecutors and judges to make that decision.  A law can never command a prosecutor to prosecute, but a carefully worded statute can limit the power of a prosecutor.   

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The second one just says Posterity is irrelevant, avoiding an analysis altogether.

Not true.  My comment directly analyzed the wording in the Preamble, quoting it in complete context, and also analyzed the legal power of the preamble in defining government power or individual rights.

To repeat myself:

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

My analysis:

Quote

Family planning both promotes "the general Welfare", and "secures the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".   It is about securing and protecting "liberty" of those born or who will be born (actualized, rather than theoretical, "Posterity") through free intention and planning.  The freedom to plan when and how many children one has through birth control measures is a protected liberty.

I also directly analyzed the word "Posterity" in how it is referencing what will be actualized at some future date, rather than what could theoretically be our posterity if we were uninhibited and unrestrained in sex without any thought to family planning before or after marriage.  It is not referencing what will never due to preventing unwanted pregnancies, but what will actually become our posterity. 

I also gave examples of current practice of government and how the CDC is practicing national preventive measures of unwanted pregnancies.  I also gave examples of personal, private, and religious liberties that allow a person to be involved in family planning and avoid unwanted unmarital pregnancies and how none of this is in violation of the constitution or Preamble thereof. 

You have left my points unaddressed and have failed to defend or explain your position.    

Assisting in family planning only serves to secure the liberties of our actual posterity in their own liberties of family planning.  

[BlueDreams]

35 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Be careful what you wish for.  When a bill or a piece of legislation is not specific and is vague, what you are really doing is leaving it up to a prosecutors and judges to make that decision.  A law can never command a prosecutor to prosecute, but a carefully worded statute can limit the power of a prosecutor.   

I’m well aware that it leaves space both for push back and for interpretions I likely find too loose or too narrow. But it’s more likely to a) pass and b) have less national push back and will likely change the debate from one that’s less heated, less oversimplified, and less polarized. It’ll align more with what the majority vaguely supports. It would hopefully then lead to more meaningful discussions that have far larger effects IMHO, including in actually reducing the number of abortions. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited May 19, 2022 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will address after you lay out your own view point on the matter. 

Oh; as I said, your willingness may vary. “After you…” is unacceptable some 2 dozen posts into constant push-back on my idea to critically analyze "Posterity." Use the example I provided as a kind of template if you want to, but I hope it doesn't influence your analysis, just give you an idea of what I'm looking for.

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not true.  My comment directly analyzed the wording in the Preamble, quoting it in complete context, and also analyzed the legal power of the preamble in defining government power or individual rights.

To repeat myself:

My analysis:

I also directly analyzed the word "Posterity" in how it is referencing what will be actualized at some future date, rather than what could theoretically be our posterity if we were uninhibited and unrestrained in sex without any thought to family planning before or after marriage.  It is not referencing what will never due to preventing unwanted pregnancies, but what will actually become our posterity. 

I also gave examples of current practice of government and how the CDC is practicing national preventive measures of unwanted pregnancies.  I also gave examples of personal, private, and religious liberties that allow a person to be involved in family planning and avoid unwanted unmarital pregnancies and how none of this is in violation of the constitution or Preamble thereof. 

You have left my points unaddressed and have failed to defend or explain your position.    

Assisting in family planning only serves to secure the liberties of our actual posterity in their own liberties of family planning.  

I don’t think you did what it seems you think you did. Your “analysis” is but a circular justification of family planning since your qualification for “Posterity” means born through family planning, and your examples are supposed to support this on some basis. And more rhetoric to boot!

I did not say I have a position, only that I wanted to see a critical analysis of “Posterity” in the proposals offered. No one has provided that, but have indeed loftily stated their positions. Use the example I provided as a kind of template if you want to, upon risk on my doing your thinking for you.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think you did what it seems you think you did. Your “analysis” is but a circular justification of family planning since your qualification for “Posterity” means born through family planning, and your examples are supposed to support this on some basis. And more rhetoric to boot!

Yikes, I am at a loss. 

Once again you are distorting my words and neglecting to address what I have actually said.   I never said that posterity means "born through family planning".   Please, once again, don't put words in my mouth.  I said that posterity means what will actually become our posterity, and not what could have theoretically been...  Posterity could be born out of family planning or not.   That liberty is upon the people to decide if their posterity will be planned or not.  There is no legal restriction on the government to assist the people in realizing their choices they have been granted through liberty.  My point is that it is a liberty of ours, and our posterity.  The liberty of our posterity is directly addressed in the preamble.  You have failed to address that point.  

You have also failed to address the point that the church practices family planning, are they in violation of the preamble of the constitution, and thus the constitution itself???  Please answer the question.  

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I did not say I have a position...

Yes you kind of did.  You suggested that after Dobbs v Jackson... "these subjects too will probably go to the States to manage."  You then suggested that our Church's Handbook and Proclamation would serve as good resources to guide states in family planning measures.  

One - this case has nothing to do with prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  Two - if family planning is unconstitutional as it violates the rights of our "Posterity", then how could the states constitutionally manage such things?  How could the church?  How could any individual avoid an unwanted pregnancy without violating the constitution?

So, if you cannot conceivably come up with an example of how this is a violation of the constitution, then I suggest that this is all irrelevant and we move on.  So, if you truly have no position, then lets just move on.  If however you think I am wrong in suggesting that it is irrelevant for the reasons I mention, then you do have a position that needs to be defended. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Oh; as I said, your willingness may vary. “After you…” is unacceptable some 2 dozen posts into constant push-back on my idea to critically analyze "Posterity." Use the example I provided as a kind of template if you want to, but I hope it doesn't influence your analysis, just give you an idea of what I'm looking for.

My first response was asking for you to clarify your position, which you continue to decline to do. I’m not your monkey. You brought it up. Put up or we can be done. 

[pogi]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I was talking mainly of the low numbers for the scare image I've seen used to paint the open legality laws as "being able to abort a baby till the moment it crowns." Though I have serious concerns about this law, from all accounts that I can find, that's simply not what's happening. As I've mentioned more than once, i'm a stickler for accuracy. I want as accurate information being used when decided what should happen on the legal front. 

I too find it scary that this is legally possible.  I don't see anything inaccurate in their attacks of the "ability to abort a baby..." The fact that the law allows for it is the concern - that they are "able".  Even if it is extremely rare, it is legal.  That is the problem. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Ironically, I'm more concerned about doctors failing women in healthcare practices dealing with pregnancy/labor and delivery than anything else. I've witnessed way too many stories of women's health concerns going unmet. The stats and current medical practices have led to a steady increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes, and indicate that there's more at risk with women's health from pregnancy than their is abortion. 

If it is doctors you are concerned about, I'm not sure how regulating them less would be a good solution to resolving your concern.   I too am concerned about the practice of doctors.  There are some quacks out there (see Covid).  Without clear guidelines, doctors will push the boundaries in unacceptable ways.   They need clear guidelines.  

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This is strongly debateable on several fronts. But I'm not one to debate the nitty gritty of legal precedent and federal government guidelines. It likely isn't suprising that I would prefer medical practice in general have basic national standards that need to be met. It seems contradictory to me to insist the constitution is about protecting life and then not assuring basic expectations from an institution meant to specifically protect and save lives. 

Either way, whether we are talking about the federal government standardizing practice in the US or not, the federal government must not allow those standards to violate the constitutional rights to life.  That is the primary role of the federal government to protect those rights and not give states wiggle room with those rights.  So, either way, the government NEEDS to set clear boundaries as to what those rights are and who gets them. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Specific to a degree. Most the constitution at this point is interpreted. Some are loosely applied, some are more specific. I don't see there being an obvious guideline in law saying there must be specific or vague protections. As I mentioned, I'd rather have federal law give a baseline/parameter of protections and states be able to have some flexibility in implementing them based on their specific stat needs or desires. For example a baseline of  "abortion services post 20 weeks for severe health concerns for mothers or fetus is legal" Different states can decide whether they interpret that more restrictively or loosely as to what is considered severe.

Currently, it is pretty vague.  "Personhood" is vague and will need to be clarified by the courts.  Is the unborn a "person" or not.  At what point is it a person?  The constitution and/or courts need to be clear as to whom these rights belong to - otherwise it is a useless document/system. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, a person who does not live via another person has every right to life (barring extreme scenarios). A fetus/embryo does not have that inherent right.

That is your opinion that has not been decided by the courts and is pretty vague in the constitution.  The Unborn Victims of Violence act seems to suggest that the unborn do have rights to life and that they can be victims of violence and that those acts of violence are punishable as a violation of their rights. Roe kept it from addressing victims of abortion, but now that Roe is out of the way...   If the Unborn Victims of Violence act is constitutional, then I don't see why it can't apply to abortion too.  

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And for me the question isn't does a person with DS have a right to life...

For the purposes of the constitution and the courts to be fulfilled, that is precisely the question that must be addressed. Who is protected by the constitutional right to life, and who (or what) is not?  It is currently being decided if an elephant is a person...  Sheesh!  If these same people arguing that an elephant is a person are the same people arguing that a fetus is not, I think I will want to vomit a little. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

*** for the record, in general post 20, I'd prefer DS not be a reason for abortion as it's not a severe enough abnormality. Pre 20....I'd still prefer it not happen solely for that, but I'm unsure it's ethical (within my moral framework) to insist on that either... and with things like IVF I think a parent has every right to screen out genetic disorders that would include significant impairment. As I mentioned, I've contemplated that option for myself and am very open to it and the version of disorder my daughter has is far less severe than DS in many ways. So I prefer not to be a hypocrite. 

For me it really is as simple as addressing who is protected under the constitutional right to life.  Who is a person under the law and who is not.  All these other questions may or may not even be relevant based on that definition.   From where I stand, the best objective definition of a human being (which I think should direct our understanding of personhood) is found in biology.  There is no other objective measure we have to direct us. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My first response was asking for you to clarify your position, which you continue to decline to do. I’m not your monkey. You brought it up. Put up or we can be done. 

And I replied Posted 22 hours ago

I clarified that I am not saying there is a “constitutionally mandated expectation that women get pregnant and carry babies” (your words). I then clarified my position (if you want to call it  a position): “that the meaning and scope of “Posterity” is bound to be taken into account in SCOTUS decisions…” and so on for the rest of the post. My request was that anyone expressing a legislative position on abortion, preventing unwanted pregnancies and births, etc. bring their analysis of that factor into their justification.

Edited May 19, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yikes, I am at a loss. 

Once again you are distorting my words and neglecting to address what I have actually said.   I never said that posterity means "born through family planning".   Please, once again, don't put words in my mouth.  I said that posterity means what will actually become our posterity, and not what could have theoretically been...  Posterity could be born out of family planning or not.   That liberty is upon the people to decide if their posterity will be planned or not.  There is no legal restriction on the government to assist the people in realizing their choices they have been granted through liberty.  My point is that it is a liberty of ours, and our posterity.  The liberty of our posterity is directly addressed in the preamble.  You have failed to address that point.  

You have also failed to address the point that the church practices family planning, are they in violation of the preamble of the constitution, and thus the constitution itself???  Please answer the question.  

Yes you kind of did.  You suggested that after Dobbs v Jackson... "these subjects too will probably go to the States to manage."  You then suggested that our Church's Handbook and Proclamation would serve as good resources to guide states in family planning measures.  

One - this case has nothing to do with prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  Two - if family planning is unconstitutional as it violates the rights of our "Posterity", then how could the states constitutionally manage such things?  How could the church?  How could any individual avoid an unwanted pregnancy without violating the constitution?

So, if you cannot conceivably come up with an example of how this is a violation of the constitution, then I suggest that this is all irrelevant and we move on.  So, if you truly have no position, then lets just move on.  If however you think I am wrong in suggesting that it is irrelevant for the reasons I mention, then you do have a position that needs to be defended. 

Your “analysis” from above shows that you believe the Preamble’s “Posterity” are “those born or who will be born (actualized, rather than theoretical, "Posterity") through free intention and planning.” And nailed the point by saying, “Assisting in family planning only serves to secure the liberties of [those born or who will be born through free intention and planning] in their own liberties of family planning.” Circular.

The only position I’ve really stated and reiterated is “that the meaning and scope of “Posterity” is bound to be taken into account in SCOTUS decisions…” The reason I bring this up is that it is very basic to the discussion of national legislative measures concerning prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

“Kind of…” doesn’t cut it. But to your point (kind of, regardless), it doesn’t matter to me whether these legislative determinations go to the States or not; and, as an afterthought, if a State’s laws and the Church’s Handbook/Proclamation resonate, that’s a good fit between their interests.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The reason I bring this up is that it is very basic to the discussion of national legislative measures concerning prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

This is apparent to no one but you. Perhaps you can state why you believe there is a link here. I see none. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Your “analysis” from above shows that you believe the Preamble’s “Posterity” are “those born or who will be born (actualized, rather than theoretical, "Posterity") through free intention and planning.” And nailed the point by saying, “Assisting in family planning only serves to secure the liberties of [those born or who will be born through free intention and planning] in their own liberties of family planning.” Circular.

And an analysis of my analysis shows something other than what you are suggesting.  "Through free intention" does not necessarily include planning.  It means that they freely had sex and chose not to abort the fetus.  My point is spelled out in the part that says "those born or who will be born".  That includes both planned and unplanned pregnancies, as I have already explained. 

The second point is showing how government assistance in family planning "serves to secure the liberties of our actual posterity" in helping them to achieve their goals/choices/liberties.  They have liberty to choose family planning or breed like rabbits...  That is their constitutionally protected right. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The only position I’ve really stated and reiterated is “that the meaning and scope of “Posterity” is bound to be taken into account in SCOTUS decisions…” The reason I bring this up is that it is very basic to the discussion of national legislative measures concerning prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

And I disagreed with your position.  I laid out a reasonable argument as to why it is not relevant.  You have not provided a counter argument.  Why and how is it relevant?  If family planning (excluding abortion) is a constitutional liberty and right, than why would SCOTUS be "bound" to get involved in family planning and take this into account?  How is it relevant?  See the context of "Posterity" in the preamble.  IT is irrelevant to the discussion of preventing unwanted pregnancies.   

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

“Kind of…” doesn’t cut it. But to your point (kind of, regardless), it doesn’t matter to me whether these legislative determinations go to the States or not; and, as an afterthought, if a State’s laws and the Church’s Handbook/Proclamation resonate, that’s a good fit between their interests.

Is it your position then that the church is not violating any rights of theoretical future posterity by requiring abstinence before marriage for full fellowship?  

Edited May 19, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is apparent to no one but you. Perhaps you can state why you believe there is a link here. I see none. 

Let's just say it isn't apparent to you, so I will show the link: If I recall correctly, I was responding to a post holding that national legislative measures concerning prevention of unwanted pregnancies is the best way forward from an evident rescinding of Roe v. Wade in connection with the SCOTUS work on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Shifting away from away from abortion and onto prevention and public school / sex education in my mind retains the same ideological hurdles (at both national and state levels), and so perhaps it might be productive to include a deeper, more critical analysis when people argue their positions on these matters.

Since both abortion and prevention directly involve “Posterity”, I thought it would be a good idea to attend to their constitutional rights as well as those of “ourselves” when arguing positions on these matters. I have not been arguing any particular position on these matters, just raising the expectation and my advocacy to include the analysis I described when someone does.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Since …  prevention directly involve[s] “Posterity”

CFR. You can address this however you want but this connection is not obvious so please show your reasoning. For example, I have six kids and a vasectomy. How exactly (use small words for my small brain) does my vasectomy (prevention) impact the nations posterity in anyway? 

Edited May 19, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

And an analysis of my analysis shows something other than what you are suggesting.  "Through free intention" does not necessarily include planning.  It means that they freely had sex and chose not to abort the fetus.  My point is spelled out in the part that says "those born or who will be born".  That includes both planned and unplanned pregnancies, as I have already explained. 

The second point is showing how government assistance in family planning "serves to secure the liberties of our actual posterity" in helping them to achieve their goals/choices/liberties.  They have liberty to choose family planning or breed like rabbits...  That is their constitutionally protected right. 

And I disagreed with your position.  I laid out a reasonable argument as to why it is not relevant.  You have not provided a counter argument.  Why and how is it relevant?  If family planning (excluding abortion) is a constitutional liberty and right, than why would SCOTUS be "bound" to get involved and take this into account?  

Is it your position then that the church is not violating any rights of theoretical future posterity by requiring abstinence before marriage for full fellowship?  

SCOTUS, I think, is bound to take Posterity into account. You do not, and count it as irrelevant, which seems to be an important feature of your rhetoric.

I think it goes without saying that the Church can require whatever she wishes for terms of membership as long as it is protected by the Constitution.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR. You can address this however you want but this connection is not obvious so please show your reasoning. For example, I have six kids and a vasectomy. How exactly (use small words for my small brain) does my vasectomy (prevention) impact the nations posterity in anyway? 

I've taken our lovely exchange to be one of opinion and attitude, and so haven't the need to appeal to outside sources to prove my point, which is, again, that it would be a good idea to refer to the Preamble's "Posterity" when discussing constitutionally-related matters inspired by the recent SCOUT document leak. I suppose any decision not to have children by any means would contribute to the debit side of the nation's population ledger, but this question seems to bypass a critical analysis of "Posterity."

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it goes without saying that the Church can require whatever she wishes for terms of membership as long as it is protected by the Constitution.

Before I address your other point, it will help you understand my point if we address this first. 

"As long as it is protected by the Constitution." 

Please state your position.  Is it your position that family planning (not including abortion) is protected by the Constitution?   Simple yes or no please.  Is this even in question by anyone?

Edited May 19, 2022 by pogi

[Chum]

51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have six kids and a vasectomy.

I'm so jealous. Not about the kids part. Five is enough.

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Before I address your other point, it will help you understand my point if we address this first. 

"As long as it is protected by the Constitution." 

Please state your position.  Is it your position that family planning (not including abortion) is protected by the Constitution?   Simple yes or no please.  Is this even in question by anyone?

This is so silly! Of course family planning as defined in our current laws is protected by the Constitution, as far as I understand them. But I am not proposing new laws, or preservation of current laws, that might require constitutional justification. 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR. You can address this however you want but this connection is not obvious so please show your reasoning. For example, I have six kids and a vasectomy. How exactly (use small words for my small brain) does my vasectomy (prevention) impact the nations posterity in anyway? 

Heh. I too have six kids and a vasectomy. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Of course family planning as defined in our current laws is protected by the Constitution, as far as I understand them.

So the following from wiki is a okay?

Quote

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law had support from both Republicans and Democrats.^[76] Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."^[77]