Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m comfortable with a week limit that roughly coincides with consciousness and also happens to coincide with current viability limits. 

That’s the thing: there’s never going to be an absolute that everyone agrees on. I know where I draw the line, but it’s certainly not set in stone because it is, after all, a compromise. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s the thing: there’s never going to be an absolute that everyone agrees on. I know where I draw the line, but it’s certainly not set in stone because it is, after all, a compromise. 

Right. There is no bright clear line, and there  are competing interests. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I accept it’s fluid, but it’s not useful to suggest that viability will continue to get earlier all the way to conception. If that were even possible centuries from now, we might adjust the laws and have a different discussion. For now, everyone agrees on what viability means, so it’s at least a starting point for compromise. 

Consider this -  In 1973, when Wade was decided, the age of viability was considered to be 28 weeks.  Only around 50 years later it is around 22 weeks.  In 2020 the record was set in Alabama and Curtis Means is alive today, born at 132 days, or just 18.8 weeks.  That is over a 2 1/2 month difference in just 50 years, and medical technology is advancing at a much more rapid pace today than it was in the 70's and 80's etc.  It doesn't matter if it gets to the point of conception.  My point is that we shouldn't have to re-weigh the law every decade to follow technological advances, and it makes no sense to me to base the right to life on what technology can do.   That seems out-of-touch with the nature of what we are talking about, which is human rights and not technology. 

 

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

I’m comfortable with a week limit that roughly coincides with consciousness and also happens to coincide with current viability limits. 

Basically, you guys are just defending Row v Wade. and suggesting that this is a good compromise.  I don't see how that is a compromise when almost all pro-lifers hate it, and most pro-choicer support it and are upset to see it go.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Consider this -  In 1973, when Wade was decided, the age of viability was considered to be 28 weeks.  Only around 50 years later it is around 22 weeks.  In 2020 the record was set in Alabama and Curtis Means is alive today, born at 132 days, or just 18.8 weeks.  That is over a 2 1/2 month difference in just 50 years, and medical technology is advancing at a much more rapid pace today than it was in the 70's and 80's etc.  It doesn't matter if it gets to the point of conception.  My point is that we shouldn't have to re-weigh the law every decade to follow technological advances, and it makes no sense to me to base the right to life on what technology can do.   That seems out-of-touch with the nature of what we are talking about, which is human rights and not technology. 

"Viability" is not, I think, an objective criterion.  It is a moving target that cannot readily discerned.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Basically, you guys are just defending Row v Wade. and suggesting that this is a good compromise.  I don't see how that is a compromise when almost all pro-lifers hate it, and most pro-choicer support it and are upset to see it go.   

So you are saying your compromise is you don't have a compromise?

Link to comment

I think the better compromise is what I suggested previously, which no one cared to address.  

Instead of having the government decide what must be allowed in relation to abortion before a certain point, I think it would be a better and more compromising/flexible legislation for the government to decide what must not be allowed beyond a certain point, and let states flexibility within those parameters.  

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, mtomm said:

So you are saying your compromise is you don't have a compromise?

I have already stated my compromise, and I just restated it above. 

I don't know how we would decide what that cut-off should be, but it absolutely should not be based on a moving target.  I personally think heart beat, or neural activity makes more sense.   A 10 week old fetuses who can suck her thumb has more brain and body connectivity and coordination than my cousin who was in a vegetative state for 20 years after a car accident, before passing.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, pogi said:

Basically, you guys are just defending Row v Wade. and suggesting that this is a good compromise.  I don't see how that is a compromise when almost all pro-lifers hate it, and most pro-choicer support it and are upset to see it go.   

I think you misunderstood me. When you (edit: the general you here) define killing an embryo as murder there is no compromise. I’m saying the framework I laid out is a good balancing between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, pogi said:

my cousin who was in a vegetative state for 20 years after a car accident, before passing.

And do you support the right of the family And the individual to pull the plug in that case? I certainly do.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Viability" is not, I think, an objective criterion.  It is a moving target that cannot readily discerned.

Thanks,

-Smac

To be clear, I think consciousness (which occurs between 24-28 weeks) is a better marker (which just happens to also coincide with an age when viability outside the womb is greatly increased. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When you define killing an embryo as murder there is no compromise.

I never defined it as such. 

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m saying the framework I laid out is a good balancing between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. 

I see.  I thought you were talking about a compromise between the "competing interests" of the pro-life and pro-choice interests, because the baby certainly cannot speak for itself to stand up for its rights and interests in negotiating a compromise of its rights. 

No one on the pro-life side is going to agree with you that that is a fair compromise of rights, or that there should even be a compromise of rights.  The right to life pretty much always trumps the right to liberty/choice in our nation.  Why should this be an exception for compromise of rights?  That doesn't make sense to me. 

Now we are back to square one and why I think it so important to define what we are talking about in regards to the right to life.  What is life?  And what is a human being?  Biology offers the only objective guidance to those questions.    Should rights be attached to human beings as defined by biology, or to "personhood" as defined by...I am at a loss as to who should have authority over that arbitrary definition, or why it should be used at all TBH.   

I am basing my compromise between the competing interests, because in our legislative/social climate, it all boils down to politics.   I don't see my views on rights as being likely to pass legislation in our political/social climate, so we compromise with the other side to meet somewhere in the legislative middle.  That is probably too rosy of an assessment of how politics work today though.  Today it is a matter of who has the bigger club or more convincing lie. 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And do you support the right of the family And the individual to pull the plug in that case? I certainly do.

Maybe beyond a certain point.  He could breathe on his own and met every definition of "viability"   It is not uncommon for car accident victims to pull out of a comma.  Their chances of gaining consciousness only decreases with time in a comma, the inverse is true with a fetus.    

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I edited (I guess while you were composing the post) to make clear that this was the general you. As to the rest. Yeah. There isn’t going to be an agreement in this thread. 

Agreed.  I am burned out.  Burnt crisp.   

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

I think it would be a better and more compromising/flexible legislation for the government to decide what must not be allowed beyond a certain point, and let states flexibility within those parameters.  

Let me see what I think that legislation looks like.

0) A quick note on gestational age. While we are often not explicit, from what I can recall from the babymaking years (and confirmed by a quick internet search), gestational age is often taken as the time (weeks) since the start of the woman's last period. Conception is also considered, but, it seems, is much more difficult to pin down, so time since last period seems to be the common one. For the law's purpose, we will use this recognizing that there are cases where even this standard is difficult to pin down.
1) A quick search for when pregnancy is detectable suggests that the most reliable pregnancy tests will be at or after the start of the next period. So, the time between 0-4 weeks is rather nebulous. You probably cannot really know if you are pregnant, yet. What should the law forbid in this stage before pregnancy is officially detected? Morning after pills? Contraception that prevents implantation but not conception? Other?
2) Another quick search suggests that most ectopic pregnancies (if they are really pregnancies so they count as abortions. it seems that many do not consider terminating ectopic pregnancies as abortions) are detected at 6 to 10 weeks. I know next to nothing about obstetrics, so I don't know when other complications are detected. First trimester is weeks 0 to 12, so it seems that at least some complications are not detected extremely early in pregnancy. What should the law forbid in the first trimester? It cannot forbid all abortions because some are necessary. This begins to feel like the same "risk analysis" kind of stuff I mentioned in my earlier comment. Forbid all abortions that have a chance of going to full term, but how will we measure those odds and where will the law draw the line for "risk is below threshold so forbidden".
3) Second trimester (13 to 28 weeks since last period). As I recall, this is a time when the fetus grows rapidly. I expect there are complications that wait until the second trimester to manifest. This is also when the fetus becomes viable (with technological help) outside the womb. What should the law forbid? You've resisted the idea of making it dependent on viability, so we can leave that out. The law can forbid "abortions for convenience", but how will the law define "convenience" and how will it distinguish between convenience and necessity? Again, as complications arise, we have to determine the chance of getting to full term (or at least past viability -- It seems that, with a lot of high risk pregnancies, the main strategy is to keep the child inside as long as possible), the determine what odds are low enough to justify forbidding aborting the pregnancy, and I'm not sure where to draw the line. We could let the courts "legislate" as individual cases come through? I'm not sure what fetal abnormalities can be detected at or before this phase. What will the law forbid in regards to overall fetal viability?
4) Third trimester (29 to 40 weeks). Assuming no fetal distress or complications, most healthy fetuses can survive with technological help outside the womb. What will the law forbid? All abortions (preferring to "birth" the child and raise it -- even if the mother doesn't want it)?

Even with a "stuff explicitly forbidden is illegal, but everything else is legal" approach, it still seems to me there are gray areas that the law will need to address in order to be enforceable.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Let me see what I think that legislation looks like.

0) A quick note on gestational age. While we are often not explicit, from what I can recall from the babymaking years (and confirmed by a quick internet search), gestational age is often taken as the time (weeks) since the start of the woman's last period. Conception is also considered, but, it seems, is much more difficult to pin down, so time since last period seems to be the common one. For the law's purpose, we will use this recognizing that there are cases where even this standard is difficult to pin down.
1) A quick search for when pregnancy is detectable suggests that the most reliable pregnancy tests will be at or after the start of the next period. So, the time between 0-4 weeks is rather nebulous. You probably cannot really know if you are pregnant, yet. What should the law forbid in this stage before pregnancy is officially detected? Morning after pills? Contraception that prevents implantation but not conception? Other?
2) Another quick search suggests that most ectopic pregnancies (if they are really pregnancies so they count as abortions. it seems that many do not consider terminating ectopic pregnancies as abortions) are detected at 6 to 10 weeks. I know next to nothing about obstetrics, so I don't know when other complications are detected. First trimester is weeks 0 to 12, so it seems that at least some complications are not detected extremely early in pregnancy. What should the law forbid in the first trimester? It cannot forbid all abortions because some are necessary. This begins to feel like the same "risk analysis" kind of stuff I mentioned in my earlier comment. Forbid all abortions that have a chance of going to full term, but how will we measure those odds and where will the law draw the line for "risk is below threshold so forbidden".
3) Second trimester (13 to 28 weeks since last period). As I recall, this is a time when the fetus grows rapidly. I expect there are complications that wait until the second trimester to manifest. This is also when the fetus becomes viable (with technological help) outside the womb. What should the law forbid? You've resisted the idea of making it dependent on viability, so we can leave that out. The law can forbid "abortions for convenience", but how will the law define "convenience" and how will it distinguish between convenience and necessity? Again, as complications arise, we have to determine the chance of getting to full term (or at least past viability -- It seems that, with a lot of high risk pregnancies, the main strategy is to keep the child inside as long as possible), the determine what odds are low enough to justify forbidding aborting the pregnancy, and I'm not sure where to draw the line. We could let the courts "legislate" as individual cases come through? I'm not sure what fetal abnormalities can be detected at or before this phase. What will the law forbid in regards to overall fetal viability?
4) Third trimester (29 to 40 weeks). Assuming no fetal distress or complications, most healthy fetuses can survive with technological help outside the womb. What will the law forbid? All abortions (preferring to "birth" the child and raise it -- even if the mother doesn't want it)?

Even with a "stuff explicitly forbidden is illegal, but everything else is legal" approach, it still seems to me there are gray areas that the law will need to address in order to be enforceable.

I can't address this now.  I am burnt.  But I have been clear that there are always exceptions.  Those can be defined by law.   There is nothing not "gray" about most things in life.  Somehow we find a way to enforce stuff.  

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

Consider this -  In 1973, when Wade was decided, the age of viability was considered to be 28 weeks.  Only around 50 years later it is around 22 weeks.  In 2020 the record was set in Alabama and Curtis Means is alive today, born at 132 days, or just 18.8 weeks.  That is over a 2 1/2 month difference in just 50 years, and medical technology is advancing at a much more rapid pace today than it was in the 70's and 80's etc.  It doesn't matter if it gets to the point of conception.  My point is that we shouldn't have to re-weigh the law every decade to follow technological advances, and it makes no sense to me to base the right to life on what technology can do.   That seems out-of-touch with the nature of what we are talking about, which is human rights and not technology. 

 

Removing "viability" from the equation:

It seems to me that the earliest abortion laws were rooted in a common understanding concerning the sanctity of life in general (not "viability"), translated into the sense that it was immoral to abort “post-quickening” (also not "viability"). The interests of society (government) were to preserve this non-scientifically determined value since it discourages commission of the anti-social “thou shalt nots” of the ten commandments. By 1973 the value of "the sanctity of life" took on more individualistic and materialistic considerations, reducing the relative weight of “Posterity” in the primary aims of our Constitution. For example, individuals and government became less cautious about debt, or advanced the “buy, borrow and die” strategy to wealth accumulation and its substitutes/imitations, which put economic burdens, or the risk and gamble thereof, on immediate and future generations ("Posterity").

It seems to me the leaked, draft SCOTUS decision would end up recognizing the right to abort as one not enumerated in the Constitution, and protected for retention by the people, and by extension the states, to legislate and regulate. The constitutionality of state laws, passed by the people on the whole, would then be determined by the due process of protecting both “ourselves and our Posterity,” meaning (to me) that “Posterity” would need to be considered and defined in those laws to reflect the common value of the people.

...and a compromise I'm sure! 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

I thought this was interesting. My active LDS niece has a pretty big following with her Instagram about dogs, and she has been pretty outspoken about abortion rights. It seems she’s not alone. Both of my active LDS daughters are pro-choice.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/mormon-bloggers-abortion-pro-choice?fbclid=IwAR3Eib8V3VZD7HCXHqEHKX_TxP_1Uw9ac4dMx5gkPa2eOHVRHMhlSfVhefE

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought this was interesting. My active LDS niece has a pretty big following with her Instagram about dogs, and she has been pretty outspoken about abortion rights. It seems she’s not alone. Both of my active LDS daughters are pro-choice.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/mormon-bloggers-abortion-pro-choice?fbclid=IwAR3Eib8V3VZD7HCXHqEHKX_TxP_1Uw9ac4dMx5gkPa2eOHVRHMhlSfVhefE

Given my comment above, under what conditions would they consider elective abortion to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (and/or conversely, at what point would elective abortion not secure them)? 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given my comment above, under what conditions would they consider elective abortion to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (and/or conversely, at what point would elective abortion not secure them)? 

You’d have to ask them, I suppose. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You’d have to ask them, I suppose. 

Since I took the link to be a springboard for further discussion on how reasonable people might seek or find compromise on the rights angle, I thought you might represent their viewpoint, or your own, in relation to my question. 

Link to comment
On 5/12/2022 at 12:15 PM, smac97 said:

You are only proving my point when you say things like this.

When irreligious people vote, they are imposing their beliefs "on those who have different beliefs."  Yet you do not object to that.  Why?

So here is the difference.

Irreligious people do not attempt to force or impose on the religious people the following:

 

Abortions.  Don't like them?  Don't get one.

Gay marriage. Don't like them?  Don't do them. 

Contraception?  Don't believe in it? Don't use it.

The list could go one.

 

But the religious tell the irreligious that the non believer cannot have an abortion, cannot have gay marriage, cannot access contraception. The religious want to impose (you may not like that word but that is what they do) their positions that primarily are based on their religion and their faith that that is what God wants, on the rest of the nation. 

I would object if non believers tried to force the LDS Church to perform gay marriages. I would object if someone tried to force a religious person to get an abortion against their beliefs. 

So no, non believer do NOT force their position on believers. BUt believers do force their positions on non believers.  Big difference..

 

Link to comment
On 5/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, smac97 said:

Same here.  I think both sides are making legitimate points.

I do not disagree.

 

On 5/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, smac97 said:

I'm curious if you can perceive - if not share and agree with - the comparison between abortion and slavery.  I am opposed to slavery, and I have no qualms with "imposing that view on others."  To the contrary, I find it both my right and duty to participate in the political and legal processes that create laws that govern society, and to make some effort to have those laws comport with my generalized notions of right and wrong.

I think this is a reasonable comparison but I need to think it through a bit more.

 

On 5/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, smac97 said:

I dislike accusatory rhetoric against the "religious right" about "{jamming} religious positions down the throat of the rest of us."  Our system of laws is set up with all sorts of checks and balances.  Meanwhile, we need to all feel free to participate in the political process.  Disparaging and insulting religious people for voting their conscience is not the way to go.

But is it right to force someone to comply with your beliefs when the other side is not forcing anyone to get an abortion?

 

On 5/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, smac97 said:

I'm happy to talk about such things.

THat is good.  Exploring ways to help prevent abortions and assist those who are economically disadvantaged support children that they may otherwise abort may help with this.

 

On 5/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, smac97 said:

I've listened to him a fair amount.  I do not detect anything like what you are suggesting.

Again, the "impose their religious beliefs" rhetoric is ugly.  Tom Hanks was wrong to disparage as "un-American" people who choose to vote according to the dictates of their conscience, and I htink you are wrong to disparage "the religious right" for voting by characterizing their participation in the political process as "impos{ing} their religious beliefs."

Thanks,

-Smac

Well see my most recent post on this and let me know your thoughts.

Link to comment
On 5/12/2022 at 1:02 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

@Teancum

So, you don't think that religious considerations have any place in civic life (that, for example, the devout should not allow such considerations to influence how the person votes)?  Do I understand you correctly? 

No.  Just don't force your religious views on me and I won't force my non religious views on you. I am not going to force anyone to get an abortion but believers want to prevent access to abortion to those who do not believe. 

 

On 5/12/2022 at 1:02 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

If my understanding of your position is correct, I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question.  There are people who base their decision about for whom they vote on whether the candidate "is someone the voter would like to have a beer with," or on whether the voter thinks the person would make an amusing or interesting appearance on Saturday Night Live or on one of the late-night talk shows (or, for that matter, on their late-morning or afternoon counterparts), or on whether the candidate is "a prized hunk of man-flesh" or "woman-flesh" (my phrases, both, but don't hit me, hate me, or hurt me: I'm just pointing out that there are voters who do think that way).

I do not know anyone who bases their votes on such things.

On 5/12/2022 at 1:02 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I think that any of the reasons listed in the foregoing paragraph are absolutely stupid reasons to vote for someone (or, for that matter, that their opposites are stupid reasons to not vote for someone).  That said, however, the privacy of the voting booth (let alone of the mental inner sanctum of the voter himself or herself) is sacrosanct: If, in the privacy of the voting booth, a voter wants to make the decision by marking his or her ballot randomly (or by making random selections electronically), the voter can do that.  It's none of my business.  And I wouldn't take away the franchise, even from someone who votes for (or who votes against) someone for what I consider to be stupid reasons.

How about you?  And even if you say, "No, never would I do that" [which is what I hope you would say, and what I expect you would say] bear in mind that there are people who say, "We shouldn't allow people who [fill in the blank] to vote," for example, "We shouldn't allow people who [are religious] to vote."  Yet, on the other hand, if we're not going to stop people from voting even for frankly stupid reasons such as the ones I list in my first paragraph ...

Think about it.

 

I do not say religious people should not vote. Just not force their religious view on others.  How would you feel about an evangelicals theocracy that prohibits Mormonism?

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...