Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[smac97]

On 5/14/2022 at 10:21 AM, Teancum said:

But is it right to force someone to comply with your beliefs

This is a matter of public policy.  Laws criminalizing sexual abuse, theft, etc. could just as easily be characterized as "forc{ing} someone to comply with your beliefs."

You are trying to cast this as a religious issue.  I don't think that's right.  There are plenty of "religious" people who are pro-abortion, and no small number of of secularists who are against it.

On 5/14/2022 at 10:21 AM, Teancum said:

when the other side is not forcing anyone to get an abortion?

"If you don't like abortions, don't get an abortion."

"If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves."

There is a common element here, namely, due attention paid to the personhood of the victims of these institutions (abortion and slavery).  As I noted previously:

Quote

Principle 1: A fetus is, during much of its development, an inchoate person, but a person nonetheless.  The value of this person matters.  A lot.  A lot.  It is a central consideration.  Many of the justifications used for elective abortions (matters of convenience, expense, preference, etc.) are abhorrent, even evil, and ought not be tolerated where the life of the child - who has personhood - is at stake.  If a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn, do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?  No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.  The humanity, the personhood of the child is a central consideration here.
...
Principle 7: This is not the first time we as as a society have struggled to address the legal ramifications of granting personhood to parties previously denied it.  The stain of slavery is still on us, though it was abolished long ago.  Our country, our system of laws, treated black men, women and children as chattel, and refused them personhood and the legal rights associated therewith.  It took, and still takes, much effort to undo this terrible wrong.  It is now time to start undoing the terrible wrong of dehumanizing unborn children by denying them personhood and characterizing them as parasites, blobs of cells, and so on.

I think this is perhaps the most difficult part of the discussion, because it cuts to the most raw emotions on both sides.  It is here that I hope we see more discussion and persuasion.

On 5/14/2022 at 10:21 AM, Teancum said:

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.

Agreed.  As I noted back on May 3: 

Quote

Principle 5: "Safe haven" laws allowing abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked, weaken the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spend 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.
...
Principle 9: We should continue to seek to use persuasion and education to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and also inculcate society with the notion that human life, including the lives of the unborn, has incalculable worth.  We ought to work to overcome the misanthropy that has seeped into our society.

I have no doubt that abortions will continue, just as slavery continues to this day.  Apparently we have the most people living in slavery today in the entire history of the world. 

I think it is incumbent upon us to work against these things.  It is not enough to simply refrain from participating in them ourselves.  

"He who does not punish evil commands that it be done." -- Leonardo Da Vinci

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." -- Albert Einstein

On 5/14/2022 at 10:21 AM, Teancum said:

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

I assume you mean this one:

Quote

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.

I reject the premise.  Abortion is not a "religion" v. "irreligious" issue.

And as noted above, this reasoning doesn't really work for me.  

"If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves."

"If you don't like elder abuse, don't take advantage of old people."

"If you don't like drunk driving, don't drink prior to driving."

"If you don't like sexual abuse of children, don't abuse them."

The list could go on.

Quote

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. 

Again, I reject the premise.

Shall we talk about taxpayer-funded abortions?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

But we are talking about voting based on our beliefs, so if a certain position is nearly universal, then the tiny minority can vote their beliefs and still not impose their beliefs on the vast majority, right?

In an ideal world? Sure. In our current political system? Not so sure. I’m going to try and stay as apolitical as possible and both parties do this. In a one party state, politics are driven by the primaries which pushes more extreme behavior. Add in people who are passionate and single issue voters (who are way over represented in primary politics) and you can end up with legislation that is much more extreme than the general population. Representing the will of a minority over the will of the majority. 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

So would you be ok with a law that forces the church to perform gay marriage in the Temple?

My understanding is that enacted laws are characterized as enforceable rather than forced, so this question makes no sense to me. I’m not sure how such a law is even possible under our constitutional democratic republic, and the Church does not operate where her practices are illegal (I'm OK with things not being 100% terrestrial 100% of the time).  But doing some work for you (you ca tank me later) in crafting a more rational question, and setting the pros- and cons- of tax exemption aside, if 501(c) is denied churches that do not perform same-sex marriage, I think the Church would bear the brunt and I would be OK with that.

[Ragerunner]

Not only do these new proposed laws not support the church’s position on abortion. I firmly believe it is morally wrong to force a woman, who has been raped or been a victims of incest to put her health and life on the line.

Some of the new laws even change the language to ‘only if the mothers life is at risk’, from ‘her health is at risk.’

Nebraska

"If Roe v. Wade, which is a horrible constitutional decision, gets overturned by the Supreme Court, which we're hopeful of, here in Nebraska, we're going to take further steps to protect those pre born babies." 

"Including in the case of rape or incest?" Bash asked. To which the governor replied: "They're still babies, too. Yes."

Arkansas

”The top law official in Arkansas has defended the state’s law that would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest - even in regard to children - claimin that “God intended for life to begin at conception”.

Arizona

“Arizona Governor recently signed a 15 week abortion ban without rape or incest exceptions.”

Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee and the list is growing rapidly.

Their are now strong movements to simply not allow any abortion at no matter the cost to the mother. THIS IS CRAZY!!!

”Matt Sandy, legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said in an interview. We don’t think abortion is even necessary to save the life of the mother.”

Edited May 16, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  No such thing as constitutional rights protecting the minorities?  Well let's just put everything up for a popular vote.  

Yes there are minority rights. Yet, such rights are still accessible within our constitutional framework to overturn such protections (e.g. constitutional amendments). Thankfully, the Founders placed in protections for minority rights to make it quite difficult for a majority, on a whim, to dismiss them. Equally thankfully, our general trend in society has been to expand those rights or make rights we believe exist but not explicitly enumerated, made explicit. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean our constitutional framework doesn't exist that would allow violence done to rights, perceived or enumerated.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you think the laws specifically targeted at polygamy practicing Latter day Saints in Utah were proper?  I don't.  The laws prohibiting cohabitation with someone you  are not legally married to only the territories?  The Edmunds Tucker act and so on?  You can use belief so long as it does not take away the rights from others. And non believers should not use whatever beliefs or non beliefs to take away the rights of believers. As I said I would not force the LDS Church to perform gay marriages.

I honestly have no idea if they were "legal" laws or not.  I haven't ever studied them.  I agree with you in that the way they were enforced did not seem legal, from the very little that I've heard about them.

But with the bolded, we limit people based on beliefs all the time, and non-believers do it at the same rate that believers do.  The issue that people disagree on is what is a right and what isn't, not whether or not rights should be protected. 

People who are pro-life tend to believe--whether they are believers or not--that the unborn baby has a right to life and that laws allowing abortion take that right away.  So according to the bold above, legalized abortion is wrong.

Of course, the pro-choice camp views it a little differently, and they are solely focused on the rights of the mother rather than any rights of the unborn.  But the argument of "protect rights!" exists for both sides.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In an ideal world? Sure. In our current political system? Not so sure. I’m going to try and stay as apolitical as possible and both parties do this. In a one party state, politics are driven by the primaries which pushes more extreme behavior. Add in people who are passionate and single issue voters (who are way over represented in primary politics) and you can end up with legislation that is much more extreme than the general population. Representing the will of a minority over the will of the majority. 

I think that does happen on the federal level quite a bit, but on the state level?  I'm not sure.  How can a majority population elect leaders in the state that vote against the majority position and instead support the minority?  (sincere question).

I agree with you though in that extremism in our politics is a huge problem right now.  We have some states that want to ban abortion completely and other states that have already made abortion legal up to the point of crowning (meaning, for those no familiar with birth lingo, up to the point of the baby's head beginning to emerge from the vagina during birth). 

The extremes on both sides have gone insane as far as I am concerned.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that does happen on the federal level quite a bit, but on the state level?  I'm not sure.  How can a majority population elect leaders in the state that vote against the majority position and instead support the minority?  (sincere question).

Why do you think the Republican Party (and the extreme elements within the party) in Utah is so against the primary system and favors the caucus system instead? (not trying to pick on Republicans, but Utah is my home state so most familiar with it). 
 

The legislature is also constantly walking back citizen passed initiatives like with redistricing and marijuana legalization. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why do you think the Republican Party (and the extreme elements within the party) in Utah is so against the primary system and favors the caucus system instead? (not trying to pick on Republicans, but Utah is my home state so most familiar with it). 
 

The legislature is also constantly walking back citizen passed initiatives like with redistricting and marijuana legalization. 

I have no idea.  I spend pretty much no time on politics and couldn't tell you the difference between the primary system and the caucus system let alone what the RP in Utah thinks of either.

How do these legislators keep getting elected here if they are doing the opposite of what the majority of voters want?

Politics is dumb.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Not only do these new proposed laws not support the church’s position on abortion. I firmly believe it is morally wrong to force a woman, who has been raped or been a victims of incest to put her health and life on the line.

Some of the new laws even change the language to ‘only if the mothers life is at risk’, from ‘her health is at risk.’

Nebraska

"If Roe v. Wade, which is a horrible constitutional decision, gets overturned by the Supreme Court, which we're hopeful of, here in Nebraska, we're going to take further steps to protect those pre born babies." 

"Including in the case of rape or incest?" Bash asked. To which the governor replied: "They're still babies, too. Yes."

Arkansas

”The top law official in Arkansas has defended the state’s law that would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest - even in regard to children - claimin that “God intended for life to begin at conception”.

Arizona

“Arizona Governor recently signed a 15 week abortion ban without rape or incest exceptions.”

Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee and the list is growing rapidly.

Their are now strong movements to simply not allow any abortion at no matter the cost to the mother. THIS IS CRAZY!!!

”Matt Sandy, legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said in an interview. We don’t think abortion is even necessary to save the life of the mother.”

I am not sure which is crazier:

Quote

Colorado joins 15 other states and Washington, D.C., in codifying the right to have an abortion either prior to a fetus's viability or throughout a pregnancy in state law.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1091041608/colorado-abortion-law

This is why I think it would be best for the federal government to ban late term abortions (with few exceptions) and set parameters on what must be allowed in regards to mother's health and rape, incest  - and then let states make their own rules within those parameters.   Otherwise, there is unacceptable extremism on both sides.  

Edited May 16, 2022 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have no idea.  I spend pretty much no time on politics and couldn't tell you the difference between the primary system and the caucus system let alone what the RP in Utah thinks of either.

How do these legislators keep getting elected here if they are doing the opposite of what the majority of voters want?

Politics is dumb.

Well let’s just look at the abortion issue. Let’s say you are mainly pro life, but would like to see some exemptions for rape and incest up to a point. Let’s say that on the ballot one candidate is in favor of no exceptions, and the other favors no restrictions and would allow abortions up to the day before delivery. These extremes (enabled by partisan primaries and single issue voters) don’t match the will of the population which is much more moderate. But how are you going to vote? It’s a binary choice. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well let’s just look at the abortion issue. Let’s say you are mainly pro life, but would like to see some exemptions for rape and incest up to a point. Let’s say that on the ballot one candidate is in favor of no exceptions, and the other favors no restrictions and would allow abortions up to the day before delivery. These extremes (enabled by partisan primaries and single issue voters) don’t match the will of the population which is much more moderate. But how are you going to vote? It’s a binary choice. 

Very true.  It's a lose/lose choice.

I'm wondering, how do these legislators-that put such extremes on the ballot-get elected?  Do they get elected on one stance and then go rogue?  Seems like they would be out the next time they were up for re-election if that was the case.  Is it something else?

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In an ideal world? Sure. In our current political system? Not so sure. I’m going to try and stay as apolitical as possible and both parties do this. In a one party state, politics are driven by the primaries which pushes more extreme behavior. Add in people who are passionate and single issue voters (who are way over represented in primary politics) and you can end up with legislation that is much more extreme than the general population. Representing the will of a minority over the will of the majority. 

That's why I say do away with the primaries and have ranked choice voting on Election Day.

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am not sure which is crazier:

This is why I think it would be best for the federal government to ban late term abortions (with few exceptions) and set parameters on what must be allowed in regards to mother's health and rape, incest  - and then let states make their own rules within those parameters.   Otherwise, there is unacceptable extremism on both sides.  

I think the ones that are forcing a victim of rape, incest or may die from the pregnancy, to have a baby, are crazier. 

With that said wouldn’t it been nice if the Supreme Court would have recognized that some type of balance/parameters would have done our country some much needed good.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Ragerunner

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

I think the ones that are forcing a victim of rape, incest or may die from the pregnancy, to have a baby, are crazier. 

With that said wouldn’t it been nice if the Supreme Court would have recognized that some type of balance/parameters would have done our country some much needed good.

We've been trying legislated-from-the-bench-by-unelected-and-unaccountable-and-tenured-for-life-judges "balance/parameters" since 1973.  The results have not been good.

The Supreme Court has said that the regulation of abortion is a matter for the states.  I think that is correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Very true.  It's a lose/lose choice.

I'm wondering, how do these legislators-that put such extremes on the ballot-get elected?  Do they get elected on one stance and then go rogue?  Seems like they would be out the next time they were up for re-election if that was the case.  Is it something else?

As seeking mentioned, it's strongly tied to primaries. Primaries play to your base....but not just the base, but the most politically active base who are willing to remember rando spring/summer dates to vote in the primaries. Most primaries don't allow you to participate in primaries unless you affiliate with the party (in UT, it's specific to the dominant party. Minority parties generally have open primaries if they have them at all). Once you get to the main election usually 2 candidates are locked in and based around political affiliation. More and more people vote mainly based on party affiliation and problems like gerrymandering and the likes further reduce the capacity for incumbents to be removed (this article says about 10% of house seats this year are considered competitive). Non-competetive seats usually take a major scandal to cause an upset. So What happens with say @SeekingUnderstanding's hypothetical is this: Person A is elected with an extreme view on abortion and fairly standard political party views (choose the party). They live in a non-competitive district (competitive ones will likely have more moderate candidates or will face tougher reelection if they upset their constituents with more extreme positions), so when it comes to election season again, they're relatively safe since those most upset with their extreme views is likely a minority voice in their population. Those who made a compromise to vote for this condidate may not feel strongly enough about this specific issue and will say "Well it could be worse....it could be candidate b who is way too {fill in political party or ideological bend" even if candidate b is actually fairly moderate. So they keep "holding their noses" for a candidate based on what they view as values closer to their own, ignoring the problems with said Person A that don't align and person A keeps getting elected inspite of views that are non-representative of their actual electorate.

 

 

There's things that are being introduced to try and break up this problem, like rank choice voting (my town in UT just tried this for their local elections) and by having independent redistricting boards. Both are slow growing and/or finding problems in implementation. 

 

(tried to keep this as non-partisan to describe a political question  ) 

With luv,

BD   

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

We've been trying legislated-from-the-bench-by-unelected-and-unaccountable-and-tenured-for-life-judges "balance/parameters" since 1973.  The results have not been good.

The Supreme Court has said that the regulation of abortion is a matter for the states.  I think that is correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Has it said that, or are you basing that on the leaked opinion?

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

I think the ones that are forcing a victim of rape, incest or may die from the pregnancy, to have a baby, are crazier. 

While I agree that is extreme and impossible to justify, late-term abortions of convenience up to the point of delivery seems more extreme to me.   Have you ever seen the aftermath of a late-term D&C?  This is a fully functioning living baby that I hope we can all agree at this point is fully a human being in every biological and philosophical sense.  This living, conscious baby is literally pulled apart alive and removed one limb or piece of skull/brain at a time.  Imagine doing this to a newborn baby...  It is no different when it is on the other side of the birth canal.    I don't think the gruesome and inhumane nature of these two things are the same.  The term "baby killer" is truly justified at that point.  

"Who may die from the pregnancy"?  You do understand how safe pregnancy is in general, right?  These states do allow for abortions if the mother's life is at risk...so this seems like a strawman. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

While I agree that is extreme and impossible to justify, late-term abortions of convenience up to the point of delivery seems more extreme to me.   Have you ever seen the aftermath of a late-term D&C?  This is a fully functioning living baby that I hope we can all agree at this point is fully a human being in every biological and philosophical sense.  This living, conscious baby is literally pulled apart alive and removed one limb or piece of skull/brain at a time.  Imagine doing this to a newborn baby...  It is no different when it is on the other side of the birth canal.    I don't think the gruesome and inhumane nature of these two things are the same.  The term "baby killer" is truly justified at that point.  

"Who may die from the pregnancy"?  You do understand how safe pregnancy is in general, right?  These states do allow for abortions if the mother's life is at risk...so this seems like a strawman. 

How many late-term abortions of convenience happen each year? Why would someone carry a child that long and then suddenly decide, nah, I’m killing my baby? Color me skeptical that this happens in, generously speaking, more than a handful of cases for specific, not-for-convenience, reasons. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Has it said that, or are you basing that on the leaked opinion?

Leaked opinion, which has been confirmed as legit.  Seems like we're just waiting for the formality of publication now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  No such thing as constitutional rights protecting the minorities?  Well let's just put everything up for a popular vote.  

I have an idea let's enforce the laws we do have. You know like the law against protesting outside of a Judges home.

That's just as much of an Insurrection as what happened on January 6th. Trying to change the Supreme Court ruling by mob rule. Respond for me

[BlueDreams]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How many late-term abortions of convenience happen each year? Why would someone carry a child that long and then suddenly decide, nah, I’m killing my baby? Color me skeptical that this happens in, generously speaking, more than a handful of cases for specific, not-for-convenience, reasons.i 

 

i once tried to find stats or numbers on this. It took forever and the number was in the 10’s per year. As in no more than double digits post viability/into the 3rd trimester. from what I could tell the circumstances around them were also likely more the extreme end of problems (life of mother, fetal problems). But I can’t find them now 😕

 

with luv, 

BD 

[rodheadlee]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  No such thing as constitutional rights protecting the minorities?  Well let's just put everything up for a popular vote.  

I have an idea let's enforce the laws we do have. You know like the law against protesting outside of a Judges home.

That's just as much of an Insurrection as what happened on January 6th. Trying to change the Supreme Court ruling by mob rule. 

[rodheadlee]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Oops

Edited May 16, 2022 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Oops 

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by rodheadlee