Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[BlueDreams]

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I like some of the reasoning I'm seeing in this leaked draft.  To paraphrase: 

A Pro choice position: Without abortion, women are forced back into inequality (examples: single mother stigma, less able to compete with men in the workplace).

Pro life responses:
- States can chose, and nobody is "forcing" women to do anything any more.  For example: In Mississippi, women (51.5% of the population) cast 55.5% of the votes.
- No longer social stigma around single parenthood. 
- Fed/state laws ban discrimination on basis of pregnancy. 
- Maternal leave laws in growing numbers of states. 
- "Safe haven" laws allowing anonymous placing for adoption.  No more reason to fear a baby placed for adoption won't find a suitable home.  Women have more equitable representation, and vote more, than when Roe was decided.

SCOTUS conclusion: Both sides have merit, the people (meaning the states) should decide for their own people.

Yeah, this is terrible reasoning, IMHO. 

These are not equally merited. 

Single motherhood may have reduced in stigma but stigma is only part of the problem. Being a single mom is HARD by the nature of being a single mom...both financially, emotionally, and in available support. There is a reason poverty rates for single moms is disproportionately high

 

A states can force some women to something by convincing enough women these women don't need it or are tantamount to selfish murderers. Just because many women insist on a specific way of living doesn't mean that it's not forcing other women to live by their cultural/moral assumptions

Fed/state laws that ban pregnancy discrimination are often poorly enforced, especially for the type of work many people seeking abortion have (lower pay work that doesn't need a college diploma to have)

Maternal leave laws are growing, yes, but not equally and the majority of them do not insist employers pay their workers on leave. Most of the states with trigger laws do not have laws for any form of maternity leave. None of them have laws for paid leave. In other words the places with the most prohibitive abortion laws will be the places with the least amount of support for women post-partum

Safe haven laws really misses the point of women's lived reality around pregnancy in general and unplanned pregnancy in difficult circumstances especially. Adoption is not the replacer for abortion. 

 

These arguments to me do not have equal merit. It only take a small scratch beneath the surface to see that.

 

With luv,

BD

 

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Using the word "liar" seems to be quite popular today.  Being a "Liar" is much different than being wrong, or making a weak argument.  That is sad.

However, I am unaware of anyone who has been criminally prosecuted, ever, for having an ectopic pregnancy treated.

Also, many people on this thread are talking about "criminal" like they know what that actually means.   A criminal statute is often enforced less than a civil statute, due to the enhanced burden of proof.

Also, with the abundance of criminal laws these days and how vague they are often written, its likely that we are all criminals.

 

I don’t think anyone here is claiming there has been a prosecution for aborting an ectopic pregnancy. But that’s the law here, and I’m somehow not comfortable relying on there not being an overzealous prosecutor. 

I’m going to bow out of this. My feeling is that a woman’s decision to carry or abort a pregnancy is none of my business, but no amount of attacking each other’s honesty or character is going to change a single mind here. 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Chief Justice John Marshall might disagree, Marbury v Madison, 1803

 

 

Nope. Marbury v Madison informs the Court's ability to cast judicial review, but the Court did not really take up a role as the deciding body on the nature of constitutional rights until the 20th century. 

In any case, the idea that the rights of the people are attributable to the opinions of 9 unelected justices (which can be overturned by a future panel of 9 unelected justices) is transparently against the founding animus of the US. If Marbury says otherwise, so much the worse for Marbury.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Imagine if the material resources, political will, and social energies spent on the abortion debate had been channelled to directly help women and children instead.

...and unborn babies.  Oh crap, back to square one. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

...and unborn babies.  Oh crap, back to square one. 

The personhood of the child merits attention.  And protection.

Thanks,

Smac

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

CFR that I lied.

I said my sister could have died if abortion had been criminalised then. This is absolutely true under some possible versions of abortion criminalisation.

I do not need to provide a CFR for something that didn't happen yet.

Thanks for proving my point. 

[pogi]

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be criminalized completely for any reason whatsoever? 

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be decriminalized completely for any reason at any time during pregnancy?

Please speak up if you fit into one of the above categories - I just want to find out what kind of group we are dealing with here.  Does anyone here fit into one of these extreme positions?   It can become very easy to paint other people in extreme positions in this topic when it is more likely we are all middle-grounders to some degree or another.  It happens when we only speak of women's rights and never address the unborn baby's life at any point.  It also happens when we only talk about the unborn baby and never address mother's rights/health.  

If you are a middle grounder, what are the principles that guide your opinion in where to draw the line? 

[LoudmouthMormon]

47 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I just googled " reasons why women have abortions." While one can argue about the quality of the studies , there seems to be a pattern. The difficult reasons like because of rape or incest run around 5 % .Health both physical and mental of the mother adds another 5-10%. The large majority are for socio-economic reasons to do with timing, lack of money, relationship troubles etc.

This is a hugely important point, which needs to be widely understood.

Common reasons that women give about their choice to get abortions: 
"It's not the right time to start a family."
"I can't afford to have a baby right now."
"I don't think he's the one" (talking about the father)
"I'd have to [take time off/quit school/alter my social life]"
"I don't want to spend that much for child care."

Again, the majority, the large majority, of reasons, are along these lines.

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The personhood of the child merits attention.  And protection.

Thanks,

Smac

I agree. That is the point I was trying to make. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree that the abortion debate is a diversion from more effective promotion of public health. Imagine if the material resources, political will, and social energies spent on the abortion debate had been channelled to directly help women and children instead.

I think prevention of un-wanted pregnancies is where all the material resources and social energies from the abortion debate should go.   It is the only common ground we can find, and by far the best solution to the problem.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

A states can force some women to something by convincing enough women these women don't need it or are tantamount to selfish murderers.

I'm sorry, could you clarify the wording here?  It seems like you are saying that women shouldn't have a vote in the legality of abortion, because a state might give them information that sways them to an incorrect (in your mind, at least) opinion.

If that's what you're saying, then I wonder - what's your solution to this alleged female phenomenon to be so gullible?  Should only the men vote?  Should we ban or gag "states"?

Edited May 3, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The personhood of the child merits attention.  And protection.

Thanks,

Smac

I’m not trying to start an argument, but if there is inherent “personhood” in a fetus, then all abortions would be considered killing a person. But the church has consistently made exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life. That suggests to me that, insofar as the church is concerned, a fetus is not necessarily a person. People who have IVF often have more frozen embryos than they actually attempt to implant. Are these embryos people, and if so, what kind of protection do you suggest?

Edited May 3, 2022 by jkwilliams

[LoudmouthMormon]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be criminalized completely for any reason whatsoever?  Does anyone here believe that abortion should be decriminalized completely for any reason at any time during pregnancy?

Not me, for either extreme.

 

Quote

If you are a middle grounder, what are the principles that guide your opinion in where to draw the line? 

I am of the opinion that a woman should have control over her body, and the bunches of cells that make it up.  I am also of the opinion that a human life begins sometime before birth, and when it begins, that life deserves equal protection under the law.  Finally, I believe that a line must be drawn in the law, so we'll know when to leave the woman alone and let her do whatever she wants with her body, and when to say "aborting that child would be killing a human, and we don't kill humans in a just society."  Basically, we need to know when to send someone a doctor's bill, and when to arrest someone for murder.

Where that line should be drawn, I have no clue.  Perhaps I'm a clueless idealist, but I figure folks will do their best to draw that line.  It makes sense to me that individual states get to draw the line, so people will know where to live, and where to leave.  

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The personhood of the child merits attention.  And protection.

Thanks,

Smac

I am sure new fetal personhood bills are being drafted right now in state legislatures.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://www.chron.com/politics/amp/Texas-abortion-law-ectopic-pregnancies-legal-16691817.php

So Texas and Ohio have ‘ending tubal pregnancies are abortions’ on their books or are trying to pass them?

Your link does not have tubal pregnancies under abortions for Texas:

Quote

While the termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not technically banned under the state's abortion law especially as an abortion, Gunter says doctors may avoid such treatment as a result of a sense of fear that has set in from the ban.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not trying to start an argument, but if there is inherent “personhood” in a fetus, then all abortions would be considered killing a person. But the church has consistently made exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life. That suggests to me that, insofar as the church is concerned, a fetus is not necessarily a person. People who have IVF often have more frozen embryos than they actually attempt to implant. Are these embryos people, and if so, what kind of protection do you suggest?

Those are good questions and ones I have pondered on myself. Though I lean more toward limiting abortions, I do see a potential problem with IVF and similar procedures. Semi-on topic is this clip -

Though the format is a bit 'hokey', I did like the reasoning used. The woman actually made a case against abortion that would also include rape/incest. It was interesting.

[BlueDreams]

57 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm sorry, could you clarify the wording here?  It seems like you are saying that women shouldn't have a vote in the legality of abortion, because a state might give them information that sways them to an incorrect (in your mind, at least) opinion.

If that's what you're saying, then I wonder - what's your solution to this alleged female phenomenon to be so gullible?  Should only the men vote?  Should we ban or gag "states"?

I mean that women can be against something that would negatively effect other women and their families based on cultural knowledge/beliefs. That they can believe something that inevitably may have little effect in them but will have larger consequences for others. 
for example this article from 1903 points to the vast majority of women being against suffrage (right to vote) for women. Not by a little either. It starts off with similar cultural arguments that then quickly dive into religious, cultural, and presumed assertions on gender and social order that many of us would likely find at the very least strange to connect with the right to vote.  Maybe most of these women wouldn’t have voted even if given the chance but it doesn’t mean many others would have an are now restricted in being able to. 
 

In other word, women can be against something that restricts women too. They quite often have. 

and gullibility has nothing to do with it, male or female. Piss poor information and stereotypes about pregnancy and women who choose abortion are super common. I was just looking at a random “poll” that was run by a pro-life group that had some leading questions to help increase support for highly restrictive abortion policies (namely, the heartbeat bills). The question incorporated by leading set up (comparing the heartbeat of a child to the heartbeat of a person on the battlefield) mixed with incorrect information of when a heartbeat starts to emphasize humanness of a 3 week fetus . But what I found interesting was how many of the people polled didn’t know when a heartbeat was first detected in pregnancy. Either they flat out acknowledged they had no clue or they guess and guessed really wrong. Only 40% got it correct. Yet I went through two conservative new/religious articles before I found the og poll they were referencing to beef up a sense of support for heartbeat bills and the likes. 
this is common. I’ve seen inaccurate assumptions in pro-life arguments a LOT. they’re usually derived or supporting culture assumptions and a general moral distaste of abortion. Almost each time I’ve read a pro-life stance from pro-life sources i find a devaluing via portrayal of women pursuing abortion and/or a degree of misinformation around abortive procedures and/or pregnancy to bolster the humanness of even the least formed fetus.
So when I see the argument “more women in AL vote against abortion rights” I think It’s a pretty weak argument on all these lines. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think prevention of un-wanted pregnancies is where all the material resources and social energies from the abortion debate should go.   It is the only common ground we can find, and by far the best solution to the problem.  

However there are those who oppose birth control (Catholics).  I am hoping there will be significant funding put into support of mothers, pre and post and the children that are born as a result of the new laws and easier, but still safe adoption processes.

Paid maternity leave for low income level mothers would be helpful. This might require subsidies of smaller businesses that can’t pay a non working employee and can’t attract temporaries to hold her spot, etc.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Calm

[provoman]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be criminalized completely for any reason whatsoever? 

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be decriminalized completely for any reason at any time during pregnancy?

Please speak up if you fit into one of the above categories - I just want to find out what kind of group we are dealing with here.  Does anyone here fit into one of these extreme positions?   It can become very easy to paint other people in extreme positions in this topic when it is more likely we are all middle-grounders to some degree or another.  It happens when we only speak of women's rights and never address the unborn baby's life at any point.  It also happens when we only talk about the unborn baby and never address mother's rights/health.  

If you are a middle grounder, what are the principles that guide your opinion in where to draw the line? 

The difficulty with abortion issues, for me, is people trying to legislate their religious beliefs

A 2021 PEW study found 59% says abortion should be legal, 39% illegal in all or most cases. The 39% was broken down by religious affiliation.

So for in a society where we should not legislate religious beliefs, abortion should be legal. Such a society can establish the social construct for term at which an abortion may not be permitted

In a society where people seek to legislate their religious beliefs, they better pony-up quick to perform the religious duties for all the unwanted, destitute, etc.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think anyone here is claiming there has been a prosecution for aborting an ectopic pregnancy. But that’s the law here, and I’m somehow not comfortable relying on there not being an overzealous prosecutor. 

I’m going to bow out of this. My feeling is that a woman’s decision to carry or abort a pregnancy is none of my business, but no amount of attacking each other’s honesty or character is going to change a single mind here. 

Unfortunately, an overzealous prosecutor can pretty much prosecute anyone they want.  No one is really safe, if they don't use an anti abortion law, they can find another law. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am sure new fetal personhood bills are being drafted right now in state legislatures.

Actually, things started rolling the instant Justice Ginsburg was replaced by Justice Barrett back in 2020.

It's interesting to watch the bills, and see the states that are looking at changing the current law of the land to something more restrictive, and something less restrictive.  Mississippi, Texas, Ohio are going one way.  Maryland's Senate Bill 669, among others, are going the other way.  Same with California's AB-2223.  Terms like "perinatal" in law could be defined in various ways, including days or weeks after birth.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I mean that women can be against something that would negatively effect other women and their families based on cultural knowledge/beliefs. That they can believe something that inevitably may have little effect in them but will have larger consequences for others. 

Ok, thank you for clarifying, I think I understand.

I'm still wondering what you think should be done about it. 

I mean, it's that way right now, isn't it?  I know endless women who are against more restrictions on abortion, based on their cultural knowledge/beliefs.  They believe abortion should be free and safe, whenever the mother wants one.  And this belief will probably have little effect on them, but will have larger consequences on others - namely the women who get abortions and then suffer later impacts like depression/remorse/guilt, or negative medical impacts from the procedure.  

Edited May 3, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be criminalized completely for any reason whatsoever? 

Does anyone here believe that abortion should be decriminalized completely for any reason at any time during pregnancy?

Please speak up if you fit into one of the above categories - I just want to find out what kind of group we are dealing with here.  Does anyone here fit into one of these extreme positions?   It can become very easy to paint other people in extreme positions in this topic when it is more likely we are all middle-grounders to some degree or another.  It happens when we only speak of women's rights and never address the unborn baby's life at any point.  It also happens when we only talk about the unborn baby and never address mother's rights/health.  

If you are a middle grounder, what are the principles that guide your opinion in where to draw the line? 

We shouldn't limit our discussion to criminalization.

Most things that are not legal are not criminal. they are civil.  We don't need to make everything we don't want people do a crime.  Give them a civil penalty. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm sorry, could you clarify the wording here?  It seems like you are saying that women shouldn't have a vote in the legality of abortion, because a state might give them information that sways them to an incorrect (in your mind, at least) opinion.

If that's what you're saying, then I wonder - what's your solution to this alleged female phenomenon to be so gullible?  Should only the men vote?  Should we ban or gag "states"?

I got it more as simply because a majority of a population wants something a certain way does not make it right.  Majorities can be swayed to desired unjust laws. Civil/Minority rights are there to avoid the tyranny of the majority. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Calm

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

We shouldn't limit our discussion to criminalization.

Most things that are not legal are not criminal. they are civil.  We don't need to make everything we don't want people do a crime.  Give them a civil penalty. 

Texas figured out how to craft civil penalties to bring new harm to unliked people.

I have to admit, luring citizens to turn against each other with promises of profit - this is one of the most patently evil things I've ever seen.