Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

No, but "interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice" is.

See 18 U.S.C. § 1507.

And I noticed your deft moving of the goalposts, as Rod's comment was about disrupting a worship service.  Whatever you think of the attempts of those who believe abortion should be regulated heavily to invoke § 1507, several states have statutes penalizing interfering with worship services.

Thank you. I couldn't post the link.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

You haven’t been following along, have you?  I have rebutted it for the last 10 pages or so.  If it is a living human does not seem to be in question for anyone here but you.  

Do you really think it is “technically” correct for a physician to tell a woman before she is about to deliver a healthy baby that the fetus is not alive?  I don’t think that will go over so well!

 This has nothing to do with religion and you are wrong about our beliefs and what we “imply”

 

Pondering this last evening I decided my point and argument was poor. Accordingly I withdraw it.

[BlueDreams]

29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The trick is ‘health’ of the mother. They allow mental health issues in this and don’t define it so in reality, most any abortion up until birth would be allowed. Same trick used in Colorado and New York. It is more radical because it would immediately override all state laws and expand abortion nationwide. So even the patchwork of protections provided state to state would be gone. 
 

I’m not a fan on certain heath services being restricted or available depending the state. Some things can be and even should vary from state to state…similar to why they would from city to city. Others shouldn’t and health care to me is one of them…which to me included abortion services. Bodily autonomy and privacy do not suddenly shift when I move. 

29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

 

The bill didn’t even garner 50 votes. So, even if the Senate nuked the 60 vote filibuster, it would not have mattered. This one was doa. 

You’re right. I misread an article. 

[bsjkki]

54 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Others shouldn’t and health care to me is one of them…which to me included abortion services. Bodily autonomy and privacy do not suddenly shift when I move. 

Health requirements were a major reason people did move the last few years. I am grateful the feds don’t set health rules for the states. Even in my state, people moved county to county due to health requirements. I do not want a one size fits all country. I like federalism. Not an authoritarian federal government. Just my opinion.
 

As someone who is horrified by abortion on demand up to birth, I am grateful states can set their own lines. In my opinion, my state legalized murder. So, it’s impossible to be okay with it. This is why it’s such a divisive issue. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps you could explain why you are insisting she use your words? I mean she nailed the scientific here:

 

”An enbryo made of a human sperm and egg is a human embryo at conception. It has the specific genetic markers that if tested would distinguish it as homo sapien sapien with code that will bring on a human form and structure if it’s functional and given an adequate environment.”

What specifically do you object to? Perhaps if you could spell out why you think everyone should use your terminology that would be helpful in demonstrating you aren’t arguing from a point of bad faith. 

I am not insisting that anyone use my words, which is really just the "common" name used in biology.  I am simply defending the use of my words as legitimate and biologically sound and fair game in common use and common language in biology in reference to the embryo we are speaking of.  I want to establish what is fair and common language that we all can use without objection.  I think language is VERY important.  It directs our understanding and can have influence over legislation.   If legitimate biological language is contested in an effort to de-humanize the embryo to the point that we can't call it a human being without being contested, then there is going to be a serious disconnect.  It is a problem of mutual understanding when I speak of an embryo as a human being and it is contested.  We need to have common understanding and common language if we ever hope to meet eye to eye on this.    I was told that it is ok for me to personally believe that it is a living human being (as if I needed permission, and as if to insinuate that my beliefs are unusual), but that the science is not settled, that there is no consensus, that I am cherry picking, that it is only a "human becoming" and a "proto child" with "potentiality" to become a human being only.   I am defending the common language of the biological facts as to what we are talking about.  No one has to use that language, but it is not fair that I am called out for using the common name of Homo sapiens in this discussion of human embryos for being unscientific or unsettled. 

I believe that informed consent is critical.  People need to know exactly what it is we are dealing with in common understandable language.  Without that, consent will not be truly informed.  I believe the same should be required in legislative decision making.  Their needs to be informed decisions using common understandable language that is scientifically sound with clear consensus on the issue. 

If she wants to use "Homo sapiens" (which is actually the singular - not "Homo sapien") I have no problem with that so long as the common name is not objected to and contested as not factual or legitimate biological use, and I am not accused of cherry picking, or unjustly interjecting meaning by using the word, or incorrectly suggesting that the use of the word has consensus in biology in reference to the Homo sapiens species.

There is not much I can object to in her sentence you quoted, other than one point - it seems to suggest that an embryo is not a human form (again, an attempt to dehumanize it).  I object to that.  It is a human and therefore has human form.  Human form is not static and includes every stage of development from conception to death.  It is constantly in flux along the lifespan - and not all humans take on the same form or function.  Some are born without limbs, some are born conjoined to another, some have little to no brain function and are vegetative, some have no consciousness, some have a backwards heart and /or irregular rhythm, some are born with a micro head (microcephaly), etc.  None of this disqualifies them from being a human being in a state of human form or function.

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Again, I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the unborn child merits attention and emphasis.

Can you provide any evidence that the unborn child, which by definition is not alive yet, is a person. 

First, given the intervening remarks (see above), are you still asking this question?

Second, what "definition" are you using here?

Third, "personhood" is, I think, predominantly a philosophical/ideological/legal concept, though it is also a biological one.  Would you concur?

Fourth, even in Roe and Casey there were implicit, and even explicit, acknowledgments of life.  See, e.g., Casey:

Quote

A person retains the right to have an abortion, established by Roe v. Wade, but the state’s compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn child means that it can ban an abortion of a viable fetus under any circumstances except when the health of the mother is at risk. Also, laws restricting abortion should be evaluated under an undue burden standard rather than a strict scrutiny analysis...

"The life of an unborn child..."

Fifth, as I have previously stated that I think that personhood is both a scientific/biological and ideological/legal question, "personhood" becomes an up-to-the-electorate-and-their-representatives-in-legislature sort of thing.

Sixth, I think this Wikipedia article does a good job of summing up the main moving parts of this question.

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Other than your religious beliefs? 

I haven't cited "religious beliefs" as the basis for my position on personhood.  As a Christian and Latter-day Saint, the teachings of the Church certainly inform my position.  However, the Church has not - to my knowledge - definitively spoken on "personhood."  

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

You keep using these words because they are super charged right? 

What words?  "Unborn child?"  You just used that phrase ("Can you provide any evidence that the unborn child...").

"Baby?"  Show me an expectant mother that has not used that word to refer to her unborn child.  

"Fetus?"  I use that word, too.  See, e.g., here.

There are some words and phrases I don't use.  "Clump of cells."  "Just a clump of cells." "Parasite."  "Tumor."  "Blob of tissue."  "Mass of tissue."  "Product of conception."

I don't use these words for the same reasons I use words like "unborn child" and "baby."  That is, I think the personhood of the fetus - the unborn child, the baby - merits attention and emphasis.  "Baby" and "child" are both accurate and evocative.  Meanwhile, alternative phrases like "just a clump of cells" and "parasite" and "blob of tissue" are dehumanizing and degrading.  Akin to an antebellum slaveholder characterizing a slave as "chattel."  The word was intended be a substitute for "human" or "person," and in no way as a synonym.  The word was specifically and intentionally intended to obscure and deny the personhood of the slave.  So, too, are the above literally dehumanizing phrases/terms.

This article sums things up well:

Quote

With the subject of abortion ever on my mind these days, I recently tweeted, “We're told that ‘fetus’ is just the proper term for the baby while in the womb. Why, then, doesn't a pregnant woman say to her husband, ‘Honey, the fetus is kicking a lot today,’ or, ‘I heard the fetus's heartbeat at my doctor's appointment’?”

For many years now, abortion activists have been careful to use the word “fetus” rather than “baby,” since it’s a lot easier to abort a fetus than to kill a baby. To humanize the baby in the womb is to give it feelings, to give it value, to give it personhood. And that is the abortion industry’s worst nightmare. The fetus must not be seen as a helpless little person.

It (rather than she or he) is a clump of cells. A mass of tissue. A tumor. Nothing human about it.

...

In reality, however, the fetus is simply an unborn baby.

It doesn’t become a baby when wanted but is only a fetus when unwanted, anymore than a black man becomes a human when he’s your neighbor but is subhuman when he’s your slave.

Deep down, we all know this, which is why a wife doesn’t say to her husband, “Honey, I just found out I'm pregnant. We’re having a fetus!”

No, she says, “We’re having a baby!”, and it’s a baby from that moment until birth.

Only when the baby is unwanted and targeted for death does the terminology change. Only then is it a “fetus.”

That’s why the counselor in the Planned Parenthood clinic does not say to the pregnant young woman, “At 8 weeks your child doesn’t feel any pain.”

Instead, she explains, “The fetus feels no pain at 8 weeks.”

That sounds so much better!

And this has nothing to do with viability. For the abortionist, at 32 weeks that baby is still a fetus.
...
Matt tweeted, “Perhaps if the fetus is ‘planned’ or wanted... it [b]ecomes a baby??”

Angel responded, “Yes...it's ‘magic’. The same magic that transforms a fetus into a baby human just as it exits the birth canal, but not before! I've seen the (incredibly disgusting & ignorant) ‘argument’ that before that, the baby is a parasite or an appendage.”

Yes, said Remnant, “It must be the secret of the magical birth canal! (Although current legislation is redefining birth worth as ‘willing parental inclination.’)”

Mirella added, “It's simple, the naming depends on how much you do not want the fetus or how much you want a child.”

As Heather confirmed, “Exactly. People use the term fetus when they want to disassociate themselves with their own child. How terribly heartbreaking.”

Yes, said David, “euphemisms are the . . . thin veil of distortion and manipulation to hide truth.”

How different, then, is the perspective of a mother-to-be excited about her pregnancy: “I am 12 weeks pregnant,” tweeted Desiree. “Never once have I thought of referring to my baby as a fetus. Nor has my OB or ultrasound tech. They all call my baby a baby.”

That’s because it is a baby.

Millikan was right on target when he wrote, “What gets me-when they want a baby-take celebrities 4 example-they stop drinking/smoking, it’s ‘my baby this or that’, they’ll show us the ultrasound pics, have baby showers, nursery tours & mag. covers. But if they don’t . . . it’s a clump of cells & they’re fine w/killing it @ birth.”

I have no particular and specific objection to "fetus."  It is a clinical medical term.  But nobody - nobody - tut tuts an expectant mother when she refers to the growing fetus within her as her "baby" or "child."

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

By they way I an generally opposed to abortion but I am also opposed the the conservative religious trying to impose laws on everyone because they think their god says so.

I reject this characterization.  It is used to attempt to deligitemize the right of religious people to participate in the political process.  We all have our personal preferences, opinions, ideologies, beliefs, ets.  That some of these are influenced or informed or to some extent based on religious tenets does not - in the main - matter a whit.  If a government action is constitutional, then voters are free to call for legislation that is based on or influenced by personal beliefs, including religious beliefs.

Who use this "religious {people are wrong for} trying to impose laws on everyone" thing are hardly ever consistent about it.  Nobody says "We must decriminalize sexual abuse of children because Luke 17:2 states that '{i}t were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.'"  You don't mind it when religious folks vote in accordance with ther scruples on matters that you agree with, right?  The "legislating morality" canard is patently arbitrary and ad hoc.  I reject it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Pondering this last evening I decided my point and argument was poor. Accordingly I withdraw it.

Just saw this (after I wrote the above post).  Just FYI.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I’m flabbergasted at some of the comments in this thread. The baby I carried for nine months was not alive during that time? It was dead? Then why did she have a heartbeat? Why could I feel her kicking and moving? Why did she get the hiccups or suck her thumb? Amazing the the things something dead can do, isn’t it? 🤦‍♀️

I retracted my position. It was a bad poor argument.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Thank you. I couldn't post the link.

I stand corrected.

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Just saw this (after I wrote the above post).  Just FYI.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes thanks.  My argument was a poor one  This is a tough issue for me. I have always been opposed to abortion.  That position has softened due to my faith transition but I still personally oppose it but struggle with imposing that view on others.  I also believe that many who oppose abortion also oppose things that could help prevent abortion as well as programs that can help so many who may seek abortion due to economic circumstances.  Lastly, I do believe the religious right is pushing this agenda to impose their religious beliefs and values on the rest of Americans that do not agree with those beliefs and values and that they won't stop here.  Just listen to a little Ben Shapiro.

[Teancum]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject this characterization.  It is used to attempt to deligitemize the right of religious people to participate in the political process.  We all have our personal preferences, opinions, ideologies, beliefs, ets.  That some of these are influenced or informed or to some extent based on religious tenets does not - in the main - matter a whit.  If a government action is constitutional, then voters are free to call for legislation that is based on or influenced by personal beliefs, including religious beliefs.

If the religious right wants to impose their beliefs on those who have different beliefs then the reverse should be fair should it not?  And be careful here. The religious right may come for others who they view as a cult, etc.  Don't forget the government power that was used against the church in the late 19th century.  I didi not say that religious people cannot participate in the political process.  Just don't jam your religious positions down the throat of the rest of us.

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who use this "religious {people are wrong for} trying to impose laws on everyone" thing are hardly ever consistent about it.  Nobody says "We must decriminalize sexual abuse of children because Luke 17:2 states that '{i}t were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.'"  You don't mind it when religious folks vote in accordance with ther scruples on matters that you agree with, right?  The "legislating morality" canard is patently arbitrary and ad hoc.  I reject it.

I guess it is a tough line to walk.  Not sure I have a soliution.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

, I do believe the religious right is pushing this agenda to impose their religious beliefs and values on the rest of Americans that do not agree with those beliefs and values and that they won't stop here.

The right says the same thing about the left. IMO, my state passed a far too permissive abortion bill.
 

It’s very similar to the bill defeated in the senate. The same people who were for that bill and imposing their will on all 50 states would be horrified if the majorities swing and a conservative bill was passed that restricted abortion nationwide. 

The same arguments leaving it to the courts can be argued both ways too. Women’s right should be the law of the land? Viable babies rights should be protected? Abortion up to birth is murder? So, it’s a moral disagreement about drawing the lines. 
 

Leaving it to the states, IMO, is the best approach. We vote for our local leaders and state law reflects the view of the citizens. Purple states where both sides have to compromise, help these issues not be radicalized but they are getting to be fewer. I am not happy with my now deep blue state but it is what people voted for. At least my county more reflects my beliefs. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes thanks.  My argument was a poor one  This is a tough issue for me. I have always been opposed to abortion.  That position has softened due to my faith transition but I still personally oppose it but struggle with imposing that view on others.  I also believe that many who oppose abortion also oppose things that could help prevent abortion as well as programs that can help so many who may seek abortion due to economic circumstances.  Lastly, I do believe the religious right is pushing this agenda to impose their religious beliefs and values on the rest of Americans that do not agree with those beliefs and values and that they won't stop here.  Just listen to a little Ben Shapiro.

Pretty much. My quarrel with the “pro-life” folks is the absolutism involved in declaring a cluster of cells to be a “person” with inherent rights at the moment of conception. That to me is an extreme position fraught with potential governmental abuse and intrusion on fundamental rights.

My wife had an early miscarriage (9 weeks) with her sixth pregnancy, and it was devastating to both of us. So, I find it odd and personally insulting for people to say that I’m dehumanizing or devaluing a potential human life.

My daughter had IVF and has had 3 successful transfers out of 4 attempts, resulting in 3 beautiful grandchildren for me. She still has more frozen embryos and has agonized over what she should do. Is discarding the embryos abortion? Is it akin to killing a person? I trust my daughter, her husband, and their doctor to make that decision. I didn’t imagine my position was controversial, but an anti-abortion friend recently railed on her because “she should only have harvested as many embryos as she needed.” Of course, that’s not how IVF works; you don’t know how many you will need, so you try to get a good batch, especially since harvesting is so complicated and physically hard for the mother.

If my daughter doesn’t use the embryos, I will absolutely support her. She won’t be a baby killer. I really do hope for reasonable compromise legislation, but that’s not I’m seeing. 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Health requirements were a major reason people did move the last few years. I am grateful the feds don’t set health rules for the states. Even in my state, people moved county to county due to health requirements. I do not want a one size fits all country. I like federalism. Not an authoritarian federal government. Just my opinion.
 

As someone who is horrified by abortion on demand up to birth, I am grateful states can set their own lines. In my opinion, my state legalized murder. So, it’s impossible to be okay with it. This is why it’s such a divisive issue. 

What do you mean by health requirements. I'm not sure what you're describing?

 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Serious.  Unborn is not alive is it.  Legally you have a birth date and some day a death date.  Before your birth date you technically are not alive.  

You aren't born, but you are alive.  Trees are alive.  Fungus is alive.  Fetuses are alive.  Abortion kills them, so they have to be alive in order to be killed, otherwise, what's abortion do? 

You can argue that they aren't a person until they take their first breath, but something can still be alive without inflated lungs (and that's pretty much the only difference between a full term baby that is born and a full term baby that isn't born yet).

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Health requirements were a major reason people did move the last few years. I am grateful the feds don’t set health rules for the states. Even in my state, people moved county to county due to health requirements. I do not want a one size fits all country. I like federalism. Not an authoritarian federal government. Just my opinion. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]
 

As someone who is horrified by abortion on demand up to birth, I am grateful states can set their own lines. In my opinion, my state legalized murder. So, it’s impossible to be okay with it. This is why it’s such a divisive issue. 

Quoted for the truth of the bold!  Preach it, Sister!  (Just an opinion?  Perhaps, but, whoever might disagree, in my book, it's a pretty good opinion ...)

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Quoted for the truth of the bold!  Preach it, Sister!  (Just an opinion?  Perhaps, but, whoever might disagree, in my book, it's a pretty good opinion ...)

I believe in federalism, but not when it comes to guaranteeing basic rights. That’s what the Constitution is for. 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You aren't born, but you are alive.  Trees are alive.  Fungus is alive.  Fetuses are alive.  Abortion kills them, so they have to be alive in order to be killed, otherwise, what's abortion do? 

You can argue that they aren't a person until they take their first breath, but something can still be alive without inflated lungs (and that's pretty much the only difference between a full term baby that is born and a full term baby that isn't born yet).

 

He has retracted this argument. I think we can let it go, now.

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I believe in federalism, but not when it comes to guaranteeing basic rights. That’s what the Constitution is for. 

So the basic right of an unborn baby to live should be protected? 
 

This is why the rights not spelled out in the constitution are left to the states. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He has retracted this argument. I think we can let it go, now.

Unfortunately, I responded to his post in the order I cam to it, which was before the retraction.  I "liked" his retractions when I finally got to them, so acknowledged the change in his views.  I seldom (probably never) read an entire thread to the end before responding, so sometimes this happens.  

It wasn't an attempt to harp on anything.  Just a function of the reading the thread and responding to posts in the order that I read them.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

So the basic right of an unborn baby to live should be protected? 
 

This is why the rights not spelled out in the constitution are left to the states. 

There’s the rub. At what point does an unborn child become a person with inherent rights? If it’s at conception, then using an IUD is killing a person, as is discarding frozen embryos. Again, I prefer leaving this decision to the individual rather than to the state. 

[Analytics]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who use this "religious {people are wrong for} trying to impose laws on everyone" thing are hardly ever consistent about it.  Nobody says "We must decriminalize sexual abuse of children because Luke 17:2 states that '{i}t were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.'"  You don't mind it when religious folks vote in accordance with ther scruples on matters that you agree with, right?  The "legislating morality" canard is patently arbitrary and ad hoc.  I reject it.

There is a flaw in your thinking here. The problem is that ancient musings from a book that was compiled 1700 years ago are a terrible basis and authority for delimiting right and wrong. Yes, some versus happen to align well with the humanist values our society is based on (e.g. Luke 17:2). However, other versus teach things that are inherently evil and ought to be rejected (e.g. Proverbs 13:24). Whether a moral teachings is promoted in the Bible has no bearing on whether or not it is a good moral teaching.

If you have a ideas based on reason and humanism of how our society can be made more perfect, then by all means fully participate in our political process. But if your beliefs are based solely on the writings of old books, keep your opinions to yourself--they have no value in crafting the laws of our secular nation.

[bluebell]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

There’s the rub. At what point does an unborn child become a person with inherent rights? If it’s at conception, then using an IUD is killing a person, as is discarding frozen embryos. Again, I prefer leaving this decision to the individual rather than to the state. 

I wish I could leave it up to the individual, but as long as evil and selfish people exist and can be combined with late term abortions--which means that a person could decide to abort a full term baby for no other reason than they don't want to put off a vacation to Hawaii for a month--I don't think stopping all state or federal oversight is moral.  

The differences between embryos and full term but unborn babies are stark enough and huge enough that I just can't accept the idea that all abortions should be viewed equally.

 

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There’s the rub. At what point does an unborn child become a person with inherent rights? If it’s at conception, then using an IUD is killing a person, as is discarding frozen embryos. Again, I prefer leaving this decision to the individual rather than to the state. 

And I think there is a point that baby has rights. Now what do we do?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have no particular and specific objection to "fetus."  It is a clinical medical term.  But nobody - nobody - tut tuts an expectant mother when she refers to the growing fetus within her as her "baby" or "child."

Yep.  You are not wrong to use the word child in reference to the unborn.  It is common accepted usage in our society - with one single exception...abortion.  Than it is a BIG no no.  We can't call it a child, we can't even call it a human being without objection. 

Quote

Child

: an unborn or recently born person… Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by pogi