Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I really dislike when pro-lifers focus on women having to deal with the consequences of their actions. It makes it seem as if the baby is a punishments. "Well, you screwed up, so now you have to take care of a kid." That's a terrible message to send because of how it makes the mother look at her child. Having a child should never be seen as a punishment. Framing it that way isn't going to increase the love and connection from the mother to the child. I don't love my "punishments" (as an adult, the negative  consequence of an action I shouldn't have done). A child should always be framed as a positive, even if the mother decides to use safe haven laws or give the baby up for adoption. This is also respecting the personhood of the child, rather than turning the child into a consequence.

This reminds me of something I would say as a product of a one-night stand. I would say there's three types of kids in the world "Planned, surprises/oopsies, and mistakes. I was a mistake." For some reason, the people I know would talk ashamedly of someone getting knocked up were horrified that I would call myself a mistake...even though in the context they gave that's exactly what I was: an end result of a mistake/sin.  I always got a good laugh at their faces when I called myself a mistake. Worth it.

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

My dad and grandparents went out and celebrated I was a miscarriage (I assume they had already scheduled a dinner out and the only thing different logistically was Mom stayed home), I was too stubborn.  I also never did connect with my dad the way my siblings did.  I don’t know if his thinking I was bad timing, too soon after two pregnancies and two miscarriages made any difference.

I still don’t understand why they would leave Mom alone if they thought she was miscarrying, but I guess they figured no big deal as she was not that far along.

There is a lot of weirdness when it comes to pregnancy and birth stories in my experience. Hard to categorize.  I don’t think assuming women feel a certain way or should feel a certain way to being pregnant is wise.  And then pregnancy and children can really change family dynamics.  Lot more complicated than how I see many pro lifers present it (not saying all here).

For me, pregnancy in one way rather than allowing me to be a mother took away a lot of my motherhood because of the cost on my body.  I was and am a lot less there than I want to be.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Meadowchik’s answer is good. I ran the numbers once a few year back and even in conservative estimates the number of natural miscarriages dwarfs abortions.

In other words, you cannot provide the source that you personally used to base your statement on.  Got it. 

Link to comment

Implying that abortion is okay because a certain amount of miscarriage happens is bizarre. I guess that means it’s okay for me to deliberately kill a person because natural deaths happen. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think we should do more to counter Satan’s lies on this topic.

 

The problem is it’s just not her, there are plenty of her supporters that cheer her on with these types of comments. Just like the Catholic Church is lead by the devil.

Edited by Ragerunner
Link to comment
8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This reminds me of something I would say as a product of a one-night stand. I would say there's three types of kids in the world "Planned, surprises/oopsies, and mistakes. I was a mistake." For some reason, the people I know would talk ashamedly of someone getting knocked up were horrified that I would call myself a mistake...even though in the context they gave that's exactly what I was: an end result of a mistake/sin.  I always got a good laugh at their faces when I called myself a mistake. Worth it.

 

With luv,

BD

I was also a mistake.  It doesn't bother me to recognize that but I can see how it might others, especially kids.

Link to comment
On 5/4/2022 at 10:34 AM, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, elective abortions are a 100% life taking technique.  That is the status quo.  We disregard the personhood of the unborn child.  

Well you keep saying this but it still begs the question of hen does life begin?  When does the unborn child obtain personhood?  Isn't this really the crux of this very emotional issue?

Link to comment
17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, so if this leak was to impact the midterms why leak at all? The decision is going to come out in a month or two anyways and that would put it in the news cycle closer to the actual mid-terms. You don’t move the scandal further away from the election it is supposed to impact. The whole theory makes no sense but it came from the propagandists who cannot be questioned and is uncritically spread by bots and dupes everywhere.

EWhat we do know it was released in May. Why not wait?  We know that this is just a draft and not the final outcome. Could it be that the conversation was changing inside the supreme court and if so, the draft was released for full effect? Or maybe June is a summer month and people would have other things on their minds: hot dogs, hamburgers, vacations, BBQs, vacation, kids, Or maybe it was just to help the Dems to divert failures that people have been experiencing: inflation, weak dollar, high gas prices, food prices, violence, war, etc. And poor numbers for democrat candidates, including Biden. They could have been sitting on this draft for weeks. Who knows?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Life isn't in question for most. It's personhood or at the very least the rights and protections afforded a specific developmental stage of life that is. The interpretation of something being human life  deserving equivalent/near equivalent treatment is an ethicist interpretation of select data.  

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.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Teancum said:
Quote

Meanwhile, elective abortions are a 100% life taking technique.  That is the status quo.  We disregard the personhood of the unborn child.  

Well you keep saying this

Yes, I do.  It merits attention and emphasis.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

but it still begs the question of hen does life begin? 

Well, I am inclined toward the notions that A) this question necessarily presents both a scientific and philosophical issue, and B) as a starting point (legally speaking), life begins at fertilization.  See, for example, this Amicus Curiae brief filed in the Dodds case.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When does the unborn child obtain personhood? 

This article seems to do a good job in laying out the competing ideas on this: Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Isn't this really the crux of this very emotional issue?

I think it is a central concern, yes.  But not the only one.  We should also consider the bodily autonomy of the mother, the health and welfare of the mother, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Implying that abortion is okay because a certain amount of miscarriage happens is bizarre. I guess that means it’s okay for me to deliberately kill a person because natural deaths happen. 

I think it tied to the weird psychology/logic around early pregnancy especially. If there was something “natural” that was killing 10-15%…possible up to 25% of all babies we would be seeking every medical answer to reaolve the problem. We’ve basically done that by public health improvements and medical interventions in the last century or so. But there’s literally “human lives” so forgettable that we never knew they existed in the first place. Even when we do know there was a pregnancy, we don’t mourn this the same as even a later still birth and certainly not that of a born child. With a child you mourn the person. When one grieves miscarriages within the first trimester especially, one mourns the loss of a hope and a dream. Not a person. The intensity of the mourning may be tied to their belief system, not a full experience with a being. I saw a fb post eons ago of a pro-life woman showing twin 6-8 week fetuses that she miscarried. She named and gendered them, even though they had no clear sex at that stage of development. I think she saw the picture as pointing to pro-life messaging. I found it weird and saw it as a lost embryo…an embryo she was largely personifying before it was fully a person. 
i don’t see embryos as full human beings. I don’t see early pregnancy as the same as my daughter. If I lost her I would have been immeasurably devastated. When I had a miscarriage, I had a blighted ovum. I felt no tie to this glorified yolk sack with a couple of cells of “uniquely human dna.” I had no reason to fear for future pregnancies because the info I had about blighted ovums and my own fertility.  I felt nothing toward the mass that, if it had coded right, may have one day been a human. But it wasn’t.  
So in this quasi-state where we can unknowingly lose a zygote or 2 there’s then this dissonant message that each abortion, no matter how early, is a baby killed. It’s weird. And it’s weird how much that belief can get projected onto miscarriage without taking on the added push to fix the problem of miscarriage. It’s weird how that bleeds into how we talk about pregnancy. It’s weird still that each time I’ve had to explain my miscarriage, I’ve had to preface it with “I don’t care about the miscarriage, I care about the trauma” to avoid condolences for a baby I didn’t lose. 
 

Basically our dialogue around early pregnancy is weird and convoluted and often dependent on the person’s beliefs/politics. That can’t be said of any other life stage of human development. 
 

 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was also a mistake.  It doesn't bother me to recognize that but I can see how it might others, especially kids.

Me neither. Several of my brothers were too. We laugh at it and then make solid contingencies to make sure it doesn’t happen to another generation.

 

with luv, 

BD 

Link to comment
Quote

Even when we do know there was a pregnancy, we don’t mourn this the same as even a later still birth and certainly not that of a born child. With a child you mourn the person. When one grieves miscarriages within the first trimester especially, one mourned is the loss of a hope and a dream.

Psychologically I don’t know how a woman could mentally survive if the vast majority of us felt the same loss for each early miscarriage as a child we had held in our arms.  That amount of grief would be unbearable in my view.

Link to comment
2 minutes 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 quite agree.

2 minutes 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. 

"Personhood" is a placekeeper used in a legal context.  

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

It ceases to be "a fluid and nebulous" term when its definition is legislatively codified.  This is one of the central defects in Roe, its slipperiness in defining when the fetus becomes a "person" entitled to protection under the law.

The fifty states' legislatures will now be able to craft definitions and laws pertaining to when a "fetus" is a "person" entitled to protections under the law.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

The laws in America do not deny personhood to any of these folks.  However, it looks like California is gearing up to go a different way on this:

Quote

Official Analysis by Pro-Abortion-Majority Committee Staff on California Abortion Bill Confirms What We've Been Saying – "'Perinatal Death' Language Could Lead to Unintended and Undesirable Conclusion"

By Olivia Summers | April 11

I recently told you about California Assembly Bill 2223, which contains a provision preventing any person from being subject to civil or criminal liability “based on actions or omissions with respect to their . . . alleged pregnancy outcome, including . . . perinatal death.” You may recall that the “perinatal” period covers roughly from 28 weeks of pregnancy to 1-4 weeks post birth.

Note that the meaning of "perinatal" becomes important here.

Quote

Based on our legal analysis of Assembly Bill 2223, and Maryland Bills 626 and 669, we informed you that the legislation – as proposed – could handicap the investigations into the deaths of newborns and effectively legalize infanticide.

Despite the plethora of “fact check” articles that have denied and downplayed the stark truth of what we’ve been saying about these bills, we now have an official analysis provided by the Chief Counsel for the pro-abortion majority California State Assembly Committee on Judiciary, stating that “the ‘perinatal death’ language could lead to an unintended and undesirable conclusion.” The analysis goes on to say that the bill

may not be sufficiently clear that ‘perinatal death’ is intended to be the consequence of a pregnancy complication. Thus, the bill could be interpreted to immunize a pregnant person from all criminal penalties for all pregnancy related outcomes, including the death of a newborn for any reason during the ‘perinatal’ period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications . . . .

Exactly. This is what we’ve been raising the alarm about for weeks. It could in fact effectively legalize infanticide.

I'll be curious as to how this will play out.  I don't doubt that California is reckless enough to pass this bill into law.  If and when that happens, I think it will only be a matter of time before

  • A) a baby dies during the "'perinatal' period after birth,"
  • B) the death will "not {be} attributable to pregnancy complications" (that is, the death will be due to neglect or malicious conduct),
  • C) a prosecutor will bring criminal charges pertaining to the death of the child, and
  • D) the defendant's defense attorney will attempt to use the "perinatal death" language to exonerate the defendant.

So, yeah.  Definitions matter.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

It has also been used to grant rights to corporations, labor organizations, partnerships, etc. 

Yes.  I think the basic reasoning is that if an individual person has rights under the law, then groups of individuals can also have rights under the law.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, when a corporation can be a person, while another human-being is not considered a person. 

The only "human beings" who are potentially not "persons" under the law are the unborn.  And state legislatures will now have the opportunity to rectify that to some extent.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I sense corruption in the term.

I don't see it that way.  The law has some particular quirks that necessarily require the judge to inquire into matters of standing, of rights, residency, citizenship, and . . . personhood.  The intention here is not to create or foster corruption, but to administer the law in reasonable ways.  

That's not to say, however, that there are not efforts at work in corrupting the term.  There are animal rights activists who want animals to be granted "personhood."  See also this interesting article: The Movement to Give ‘Personhood’ Rights to Animals.  This is, in my view, unworkable.  So we need to maintain boundaries in some ways, allow for principled distinctions and exceptions in others, etc.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.  

"Personhood" is a legal concept.  It has its place in our discourse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 5/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, Duncan said:

I'd be interested to know if electively aborted children's spirits come through in another child somewhere else. I don't buy into the mindset that if a child is electively aborted that's the child's one chance at mortality, how else would they get resurrected if they never came to earth in the first place? even stillborn babies will be resurrected, they were born dead but they will be all right in the end. 

It would seem consistent with LDS doctrine that that spirit would still be born to another body. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Implying that abortion is okay because a certain amount of miscarriage happens is bizarre. I guess that means it’s okay for me to deliberately kill a person because natural deaths happen. 

Sounds like you're oversimplifying what others have said.

"Nature selects" when an organism is incompatible with life, but in the case of abortion, the woman would be deciding that the pregnancy in her own body is incompatible with her life. It is a very specific set of circumstances. Other people who live outside our bodies are not inside the domain of a womb.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sounds like you're oversimplifying what others have said.

"Nature selects" when an organism is incompatible with life, but in the case of abortion, the woman would be deciding that the pregnancy in her own body is incompatible with her life. It is a very specific set of circumstances. Other people who live outside our bodies are not inside the domain of a womb.

So partial-birt abortions are, in your view, acceptable?

Late-term abortions?  Any time prior to birth?  No constraints at all?  "The domain of a womb" seems to go there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 5/4/2022 at 1:36 PM, smac97 said:

Not sure about the latter.

A very debateable assertion, that.  We have electively killed tens of millions of babies since 1973.

I think it does.  There were plenty of difficulties that arose from freeing the slaves.  Huge economic, social, legal consequences all around.  But in the end, coping with such difficulties were better than the antebellum status quo, which involved the literal dehumanization of millions of black people held in enforced servitude.  It was better to recognize their humanity, free them and let them live their lives, even though doing so came at tremendous cost and difficulty, even down to the present day.

I submit that the same will hold for reducing elective abortions.  Let us recognize the humanity of these children.  Let them have a chance at life, even if doing so comes at great cost and difficulty.

I think the comparison holds.

I think it is.  Ethics/morals are baked into many of our laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Are you for things that will support these children after they are born?  Many are born into poor economic situations.  How about better access to health care?  Universal health care?  Better education. Paid community college tuition?  How about free access to birth control?  Better sex education, etc.   In my experience most who oppose abortion are also those who political oppose the programs that can help these children in their lives.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It would seem consistent with LDS doctrine that that spirit would still be born to another body. 

LDS doctrine is that all of God’s children will have a chance to gain a mortal body. So you could infer that the spirit would be born to someone else and/or at a different time. Any lds member that says abortion is denying God’s children an opportunity to gain a mortal body would be in correct. All will still receive that opportunity.
It might change what family you come too or when.

I think you and others might fine this of interest, related to this conversation. 

“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.”

So when does life truly begin? Is it when you take your first breathe?

Edited by Ragerunner
Link to comment
1 hour ago, why me said:

EWhat we do know it was released in May. Why not wait?  We know that this is just a draft and not the final outcome. Could it be that the conversation was changing inside the supreme court and if so, the draft was released for full effect? Or maybe June is a summer month and people would have other things on their minds: hot dogs, hamburgers, vacations, BBQs, vacation, kids, Or maybe it was just to help the Dems to divert failures that people have been experiencing: inflation, weak dollar, high gas prices, food prices, violence, war, etc. And poor numbers for democrat candidates, including Biden. They could have been sitting on this draft for weeks. Who knows?

Or maybe somebody saw the opportunity to sell it to Politico and this wasn't about politics at all. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.

"Personhood" is a placekeeper used in a legal context.  

It ceases to be "a fluid and nebulous" term when its definition is legislatively codified.  This is one of the central defects in Roe, its slipperiness in defining when the fetus becomes a "person" entitled to protection under the law.

The fifty states' legislatures will now be able to craft definitions and laws pertaining to when a "fetus" is a "person" entitled to protections under the law.

The laws in America do not deny personhood to any of these folks.  However, it looks like California is gearing up to go a different way on this:

Note that the meaning of "perinatal" becomes important here.

I'll be curious as to how this will play out.  I don't doubt that California is reckless enough to pass this bill into law.  If and when that happens, I think it will only be a matter of time before

  • A) a baby dies during the "'perinatal' period after birth,"
  • B) the death will "not {be} attributable to pregnancy complications" (that is, the death will be due to neglect or malicious conduct),
  • C) a prosecutor will bring criminal charges pertaining to the death of the child, and
  • D) the defendant's defense attorney will attempt to use the "perinatal death" language to exonerate the defendant.

So, yeah.  Definitions matter.

Yes.  I think the basic reasoning is that if an individual person has rights under the law, then groups of individuals can also have rights under the law.

The only "human beings" who are potentially not "persons" under the law are the unborn.  And state legislatures will now have the opportunity to rectify that to some extent.

I don't see it that way.  The law has some particular quirks that necessarily require the judge to inquire into matters of standing, of rights, residency, citizenship, and . . . personhood.  The intention here is not to create or foster corruption, but to administer the law in reasonable ways.  

That's not to say, however, that there are not efforts at work in corrupting the term.  There are animal rights activists who want animals to be granted "personhood."  See also this interesting article: The Movement to Give ‘Personhood’ Rights to Animals.  This is, in my view, unworkable.  So we need to maintain boundaries in some ways, allow for principled distinctions and exceptions in others, etc.

"Personhood" is a legal concept.  It has its place in our discourse.

Thanks,

-Smac

I still don't like the term.  Why is it given so much legal weight?  Why do we need this legal tool.  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.    It is literally a made up term with absolutely no biological or spiritual foundation to it.  It is whatever the heck we want it to be.  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.  There is no method or means to falsify it, because it is not something that can be observed in nature.  And yet this made up thing caries with it incredible power.  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.    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.  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?

The idea is that basically anything can be a person if legislators or judges agree upon it and codify it into law.  ANYTHING.  People who probably know little to nothing about human biology, human development, get to decide which humans are person's and which are not.   There is nothing objective which states that animals can't be persons.  Nothing states that AI can't be persons.  There are literally no foundational objective guidelines that we can observe to determine what is and what is not a person in nature.  Legally, anything can be a person though, if a few humans decide to exclude other humans from personhood and include other non-human entities. 

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. 

 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.  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. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, why me said:

EWhat we do know it was released in May. Why not wait?  We know that this is just a draft and not the final outcome. Could it be that the conversation was changing inside the supreme court and if so, the draft was released for full effect? Or maybe June is a summer month and people would have other things on their minds: hot dogs, hamburgers, vacations, BBQs, vacation, kids, Or maybe it was just to help the Dems to divert failures that people have been experiencing: inflation, weak dollar, high gas prices, food prices, violence, war, etc. And poor numbers for democrat candidates, including Biden. They could have been sitting on this draft for weeks. Who knows?

It could easily be a conservative leaker. This is an early draft. It is likely Roberts and possibly Kavanaugh or Gorsuch would try to remove the harsher precedent destroying stuff that is in there that could target contraception and gay marriage and remove some of the more silly reasoning. Now that it has been released though any change in the reasoning could be read as bowing to political pressure so there is a greater likelihood it will not be changed. This also make it less likely anyone will change sides and kill the ruling as that would be seen as bowing to pressure.

Who would gain by more destruction of precedent? Certainly not the minority.

We don’t know who leaked it but spiking the mid-terms is bad reasoning for an early release. There are reasons a more liberal clerk would leak this too. The mid-terms theory just doesn’t hold water.

We already have several clerks being accused based on pure speculation and the calls for vengeance are going out. At least one has had their address leaked. I am sure people will act with discretion and not harass and target these people until proof comes out. /sarcasm

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...