Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

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 

That’s pretty much what I thought. It makes for good political talking points, but the reality is different. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

If abortion is truly wrong, letting states decide allows for states to keep it legal. Shouldn't we push for a nationwide ban? The personhood of the fetus doesn't change when we cross state lines. The law should reflect this.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

How many late-term abortions of convenience happen each year? 

Around 8,860.

Quote

 

A model-based approach developed by researchers from the Guttmacher Institute, World Health Organization and United Nations puts the average annual number of abortions in the U.S. around 886,000.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2022/05/07/abortion-by-the-numbers/?sh=1a67b5ba60a8

 

 

The CDC reports that around 1% of abortions are late-term.   

In ten years time...that is 88,600 viable living fetus's  crushed and pulled apart alive in the US.

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would someone carry a child that long and then suddenly decide, nah, I’m killing my baby? 

There are lots of reasons from money, not having insurance, just put it off, changed their mind, disagreements with the man, found out the child has a disability life Down Syndrome or something... almost all of them are "elective" procedures. 

Shall we compare these numbers to how many people die giving birth after incest or rape per year?  Talk about small numbers!   Not to mention there are provisions when the mother's life is at risk to prevent this.

I think the inequity of iniquity leads heavy towards one side, if you ask me...

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Around 8,860.

 

The CDC reports that around 1% of abortions are late-term.   

In ten years time...that is 80,860 babies crushed and pulled apart alive in the US.

There are lots of reasons from money, not having insurance, just put it off, changed their mind, disagreements with the man, found out the child has a disability life Down Syndrome or something... almost all of them are "elective" procedures. 

Shall we compare these numbers to how many people die giving birth after incest or rape per year?  Talk about small numbers!   Not to mention there are provisions when the mother's life is at risk to prevent this.

I think the inequity of iniquity leads heavy towards one side, if you ask me...

 

The link you provided seems to be a lot more nuanced than you are presenting things. There’s nothing there that says “almost all of them are ‘elective’ procedures.”

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

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

If abortion is truly wrong, letting states decide allows for states to keep it legal.

Yes.  That is the way the Constitution is set up.

59 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Shouldn't we push for a nationwide ban?

Not if Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to impose one.

59 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The personhood of the fetus doesn't change when we cross state lines. The law should reflect this.

Agreed.  So we work at the state level.  We work to persuade legislators and get good ones elected.

I am reminded of a dialogue from 2006's Amazing Grace, one of my all-time favorite movies (which got way too little attention, IMO).  It traces the decades-long efforts of William Wilberforce to abolish slavery in the British Empire in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.  He spent much of his life and means and energy A) being horrified and appalled by slavery, and B) working as an MP, and within the confines of the law, to end it.  He worked with several other abolitionists who shared his views, including Thomas Clarkson.  

In the film there is a scene in which Wilberforce has once again experienced a setback in Parliament because another MP, Dundas, has proposed a gradual movement toward abolition of the slave trade, rather than an immediate cessation.  The reasoning is that an immediate abolition would create financial and social havoc.  Says Dundas: "If the trade were to be abolished, I suggest that we do so gradually.  Violent storms sink ships.  This great ship of state must not be sunk by a wave of good intentions."

Wilberforce is left frustrated, feeling that Dundas has undermined the abolitionist effort.  But Wilberforce plans to keep moving forward in his efforts.  Later that day, he and his friend Clarkson, have a private conversaion in which Clarkson hints at a more abrupt and radical approach: 

• Wilberforce: They are cleverer than us, Thomas.
• Clarkson: And yet, outside the House of Commons, the mood is with us.
• Wilberforce: And what good is that?
• Clarkson: I have friends in France.  Our counterparts.  Men of principle, like you and I.  They bring me only good news.
• Wilberforce: News of what?
• Clarkson: Revolution.  They're certain it's coming.  In Paris they speak openly in the streets of emancipation.  Freedom for all men, and women too.  The Americans pulled the cork out of the bottle, Wilberforce.  Now the French share the wine.
• Wilberforce: You talk about revolution as if it were a safe thing.
• Clarkson: It's just a word.
• Wilberforce: Every day we change things, by degrees.  Education, factories.
• Clarkson: By degrees.  You sound like Dundas! 'Gradually.'
• Wilberforce: An imperfect order's better than no order.
• Clarkson: No!  We must fight for a perfect order!
• Wilberforce: I've pledged an allegiance to the king.  
• Clarkson: You know as well as I do...the king is insane.  He shakes hands with oak trees and claims he can see Germany through his telescope.  I know you have your loyalties, Wilberforce, but underneath it you're more radical than any of us.  You see, you never doubt you're right. What we say of the slave is true of the worker in the field, the weaver, the miner.  Shouldn't they be free to prosper too, instead of the fruits of their labours going to men like Tarleton?  Men who spend their money on whores and comic operas.  Young girls debauched.  Soldiers forced to beg.  It's a natural wave that's flowing, Wilber.  First Boston, then Paris.  Next London.
• Wilberforce: Thomas...you must never speak of revolution in my presence ever again.

As much as Wilberforce despised the slave trade, he recognized that it is better to work within the system to abolish it.  

I believe we have a moral obligation and imperative to work against elective abortions.  Our system of government is not, I think, set up for a top-down approach.  The Constitution leaves this matter to the states.  It is there that we should focus our efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16, 2022 by smac97

[teddyaware]

2 hours 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

I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but if the responsibility for the laws governing abortion are indeed going to be returned to the individual states, this sets up scenarios whereby the prophesied punishing judgements of God may very well be poured out on the states that vote for laws that disregard the sacredness of human life. Prior to this apparent imminent reversal of Rowe vs Wade, there was more room for the deflecting of moral responsibility since the Supreme Court made legalized abortion the law of the land. But if a majority’of the people of the individual states (through their elected representatives) vote for laws that enshrine the wholesale slaughter of the innocent, the Book of Mormon’s “fifty-plus percent rule” may kick in, and then the prophesied destructions and “sermons of nature” of the last days will begin in earnest. The offending voters of the offending states will then be left without excuse.

Edited May 16, 2022 by teddyaware

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but if the responsibility for the laws governing abortion are indeed going to be returned to the individual states, this sets up scenarios whereby the prophesied punishing judgements of God may very well be poured out on the states that vote for laws that disregard the sacredness of human life.

We've been disregarding the sacredness of human life for the last 50 years.

Here is a good article that outlines why Roe was a bad decision.  Overturning it does not end anything, it just shifts the argument back to the states.

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Prior to this apparent imminent reversal of Rowe vs Wade, there was more room for the deflecting of moral responsibility since the Supreme Court made legalized abortion the law of the land. But if a majority’of the people of the individual states (through their elected representatives) vote for laws that enshrine the wholesale slaughter of the innocent, the Book of Mormon’s “fifty-plus percent rule” may kick in, and then the prophesied destructions and “sermons of nature” of the last days will begin in earnest. The offending voters of the offending states will then be left without excuse.

I will leave prognostications about such things to the Brethren.  Meanwhile, I think the shift to the states is a good thing.  From the above article:

Quote

If and when such questions are returned to the people's representatives, then what? Relatively few Americans favor expansive bans, but substantial restrictions are popular. Rasmussen continues: 

Quote

[Senate Democrats'] bill would make abortion legal at any point during the pregnancy, up to the moment of birth. That extreme position, now embraced by President Joe Biden, is supported by only 17 percent of voters. The vast majority — 72 percent —reject that extreme position. Thirty-eight percent of respondents believe abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. Thirty-four percent believe abortion should be legal only during the early stages of a pregnancy, and not later than the end of the first trimester. The proposed legislation would also bring an end to the Hyde Amendment and calls for the taxpayer funding of abortions. Just 30 percent of voters support such funding. The legislation would prevent states from imposing modest restrictions on abortion, which have strong public support. Three-day waiting periods, spousal notifications, and parental notifications are each supported by 62 percent to 69 percent of voters.

We've cited other recent polling, including from Fox News, showing majority support for state-level bans on most abortions after six and 15 weeks. NBC's latest survey, which contains other bad news for Democrats, shows stronger support for legal abortion, but still with only a small minority of the electorate embracing Democrats' radical "unlimited-elective-abortion-on-demand" stance. The state of Colorado just enacted an extreme law along those lines. The Democratic governor defended the new measure, affirming that it would allow abortions all the way until the moment of birth. He framed the issue as one that should be determined by women's "hearts and minds," not "the laws of men." I'll therefore make male Gov. Jared Polis aware of a new YouGov poll showing roughly two-thirds of women supporting the 15-week ban policy (somewhat liberal by international standards) passed by Mississippi, at issue in SCOTUS' Dobbs case: 

Let's now focus on getting things right at the state level.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

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. 

Not sure why you quoted me in this post.  It has nothing to do with what I asked, even if you did include me in your post three times.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The link you provided seems to be a lot more nuanced than you are presenting things. There’s nothing there that says “almost all of them are ‘elective’ procedures.”

From the link:

And this:

Quote

 

What percentage of women getting later abortions are doing it to protect their own health or life or because of a fetal abnormality?

A Congressional Research Service report published in April 2018 quoted Diana Greene Foster, the lead investigator on the study above and a professor at UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health as saying “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”

“Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,” the report stated.

What are other reasons women are getting later abortions?

In a paper published in 2013 by Foster and Katrina Kimport on women who got abortions for reasons other than a danger to life or health or a fetal anomaly, they cited logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

 

And this:

Quote

Only a small proportion of women cited concerns about their own health. However, the qualitative results showed that these concerns encompassed not just risks to future health, but also the health burden of pregnancy itself. They further revealed how health concerns are linked to the concept of responsibility: Some women saw the physical burden of pregnancy and its associated health conditions as threatening their ability to fulfill responsibilities to dependents. Others underscored the importance of appropriate birthspacing for their own health and for the health and economic security of their children.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

In other words, only a "small" percentage of women have abortions for the broad category of "health" reasons.  The percentage of those who have abortions because it is actually life threatening would be significantly smaller than that tiny percentage.  The reasons to abort to save the life of the mother are tiny and most commonly related to ectopic pregnancy (early, early abortin), water break before 20 weeks with infection (again, not late term), placental abruption )“uncommon yet a serious condition,” the Cleveland Clinic states), and preeclampsia (again, almost never late term).    Late term abortions to save the life of the mother are extremely rare - like the need for cancer treatment.

Either way, 80,000+ deaths by crushing and dismembering a viable baby every decade is unconscionable and certainly is not mostly due to reasons of keeping the mother alive - not at that number. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

cited logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs.

I wonder if the states banning all abortions will cause late term abortions to go up or down. Seems to me they will go up by quite a bit as people plan save up and go to places like California. That to me is a real moral harm. 

[rodheadlee]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure why you quoted me in this post.  It has nothing to do with what I asked, even if you did include me in your post three times.

 

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure why you quoted me in this post.  It has nothing to do with what I asked, even if you did include me in your post three times.

It's a mistake. I'm sorry but I have been working on marine toilets for the last 3 days. I broke 400$ in parts and I wasn't paying attention when I hit the go button. Sorry. 

[Ragerunner]

2 hours 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. 

I am not a supporter of abortions just because. But if the mother’s health is being significantly impact, the mother’s life is in danger, rape and incest then it should be an option that the mother can choose.
I support the church’s position and anything more I don’t support. Most red states are going well past the church’s position and I will not support that. As I said before, such laws take away the religious rights of members of the church. It prohibits them from following the church’s guidelines and following the spirit.

I am surprised so many members are so locked in on politics they so easily give up the church’s position and have their religious freedoms reduced.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder if the states banning all abortions will cause late term abortions to go up or down. Seems to me they will go up by quite a bit as people plan save up and go to places like California. That to me is a real moral harm. 

 The two extremes are certainly giving place for an environment of moral harm - California needs to be considered in that moral harm as the ones actually doing the deed. 

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

I am not a supporter of abortions just because. But if the mother’s health is being significantly impact, the mother’s life is in danger, rape and incest then it should be an option that the mother can choose.
I support the church’s position and anything more I don’t support.

I don't support going past the church's position either. 

43 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Most red states are going well past the church’s position and I will not support that.

"Most"?  Do you have evidence of this?  I am pretty sure that almost all have exceptions for life threatening conditions of the mother, and rape/incest.  Only a small handful are making the news for going beyond that. 

If you look at any single blue state, they are BY FAR further away from the church's position than any red state on this issue. 

43 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

As I said before, such laws take away the religious rights of members of the church. It prohibits them from following the church’s guidelines and following the spirit.

Are you suggesting here that the church supports legalizing any abortion to protect religious rights?  I think not.  If that actually is your claim, please support it with a reference.    

43 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

I am surprised so many members are so locked in on politics they so easily give up the church’s position and have their religious freedoms reduced.

If you think this is political for me...you have me confused.  This is 100% about my moral conscience.  It is honestly hard for me to side with anything the current republican party represents - and I 100% do not condone banning all abortions (but I am not aware of that happening in any state yet that I am aware of).   It angers me to see extremism on the right on this issue, but it infuriates me even more to see the callous extremism of the left on this issue.  There simply is no comparison when one understands what states are actually allowing to takes place to a healthy, conscious, viable child.   

Edited May 16, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

From the link:

And this:

And this:

In other words, only a "small" percentage of women have abortions for the broad category of "health" reasons.  The percentage of those who have abortions because it is actually life threatening would be significantly smaller than that tiny percentage.  The reasons to abort to save the life of the mother are tiny and most commonly related to ectopic pregnancy (early, early abortin), water break before 20 weeks with infection (again, not late term), placental abruption )“uncommon yet a serious condition,” the Cleveland Clinic states), and preeclampsia (again, almost never late term).    Late term abortions to save the life of the mother are extremely rare - like the need for cancer treatment.

Either way, 80,000+ deaths by crushing and dismembering a viable baby every decade is unconscionable and certainly is not mostly due to reasons of keeping the mother alive - not at that number. 

The figures are for 20+ weeks. You made it sound like these were late-term abortions. Seemed a bit misleading. 

[jkwilliams]

I have never been very passionate about abortion rights. I suppose I just took it for granted that it was settled law and didn’t give it much thought. As I said, my wife went from being rabidly anti-abortion to vehemently pro-choice. 

Our personal view hasn’t changed: we would not condone abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother’s health (apparently I’m still quite Mormon). But if the mother’s individual liberty conflicts with an embryo/fetus’s right to potential life, I’m siding with the mother by default. If that makes me a baby killer, so be it. 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The figures are for 20+ weeks. You made it sound like these were late-term abortions. Seemed a bit misleading. 

From the link:

Quote

“Late term” abortion typically refers to abortions obtained at or after 21 weeks, 

Quote

However, according to WHO, fetal viability is possible after 20 weeks of fetal life

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/fetal-viability#:~:text=It is generally accepted that,(22 weeks of amenorrhea).

Yes, I'd call 20 weeks "late term".   We are talking about crushing and pulling apart alive a potentially viable fetus who can see, hear and respond to her mother's voice, is conscious, has a working nervous system and can feel pain (and not all abortion clinics even offer anesthesia for the fetus - and is not required by law in blue states) etc.  

Edited May 16, 2022 by pogi

[Teancum]

On 5/15/2022 at 5:23 PM, Nofear said:

One can certainly advocate that.

Well personally I would oppose forcing a religion to perform a gay marriage if their beliefs opposed it.

On 5/15/2022 at 5:23 PM, Nofear said:

 

Fortunately, as a society the majority has a belief that the peaceful beliefs of others merit some degree of respect, or at least allowance, so long as it doesn't cause bodily harm to others.  When we lose that belief, well, heaven help us all.

I agree.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

From the link:

Yes, I'd call 20 weeks "late term".   We are talking about crushing and pulling apart alive a potentially viable fetus who can see, hear and respond to her mother's voice, is conscious, has a working nervous system and can feel pain (and not all abortion clinics even offer anesthesia for the fetus) etc.  

As I said, I’m in favor of pretty severe restrictions after 20 weeks or so. 

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The wording of the ordinance itself would make the ceremony a farce.

I think you understand my point though do you not?

[filovirus]

4 hours 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.

The Supreme Court is to enforce and interpret the laws, not come up with balance/parameters. That is why we elect people to represent us, so they can do the balance/parameters.

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, I’m in favor of pretty severe restrictions after 20 weeks or so. 

Good.  Then I don't understand the defensiveness and downplaying (that's how your responses appear to me) when I call out blue states for allowing it.  Please understand that this happens almost 90,000 times a decade in the US, and is allowed for any reason and with a callous blind eye to the realities of the extreme procedure which often happens without anesthesia for the viable child.   This is not make believe.  This is really happening.  No more downplaying.  I am too tired of dealing with that from Covid. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by pogi

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

The Edmund's Tucker act was held the constitutional by the Supreme Court if I recall.

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yea I am starting to think my argument is a bit to simplistic.

[Ragerunner]

12 minutes ago, filovirus said:

The Supreme Court is to enforce and interpret the laws, not come up with balance/parameters. That is why we elect people to represent us, so they can do the balance/parameters.

When they are dealing with previous rulings they can take that into consideration in producing a new ruling.

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

1. "Most"?  Do you have evidence of this?  I am pretty sure that almost all have exceptions for life threatening conditions of the mother, and rape/incest.  Only a small handful are making the news for going beyond that.  

2. Are you suggesting here that the church supports legalizing any abortion to protect religious rights?  I think not.  If that actually is your claim, please support it with a reference.    

1. I have posted numerous examples of new red state abortion laws that don’t allow for rape, incest or the mother’s health.

2. The church has a very clear position for decades on abortions. It is to be allowed in certain situations after discussion with local leaders and prayer. Including mothers health/life, incest and rape. I cut and pasted the church’s official position from the handbook at the beginning of this thread. So the church does officially allow abortion under those conditions.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Ragerunner