Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Quote

Principle 2: There can be circumstances in which the pregnancy is not fairly attributed to the mother (rape, incest), such that she cannot be said to have consented to the conduct which precipitated the pregnancy.  In other words, free will has been materially undermined.  This may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

How does this work in practice? How in real life do we make these exceptions in a timely manner? 

I imagine legislatures will be crafting procedures for this.

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I don't see how this works at all.

I suppose we'll see.  

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

It just seems a nice thing to say

I think a claim of rape is never "a nice thing to say."  

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

but it's not something that can actually be accomplished in most cases.

I think it could readily be accompblished in most cases.  

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I guess you can force the women/girls in front of a judge and hoping, if he believes them, they can be deemed worthy of an abortion before it becomes a late term abortion or too late at all. 

"Worthy of an abortion?"  

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Am I just missing something with this principle? (Honest question.)

If a woman is sexually assaulted, a pregnancy test can ascertain pregnancy in a matter of days.  During this time the woman can file a police report.  I could see a state legislature creating a protocol that allows for the "morning after" pill, and further steps if that is not feasible.

One thing you may be missing is that you are focusing on a tiny exception, rather than the general rule.  Per this article, "{j}ust 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute."

I am in favor of a nuanced and reasonable legal approach to the 1% of abortions that are rape-related.  Meanwhile, however, the vast majority of abortions do not implicate this principle.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

4 hours 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.

To add a personal anecdote to the fray, one of my distant relatives lived in a country where abortion was legal. Over her reproductive life she had 13 abortions. She used it as a contraceptive after the fact. But I'm sure she was the exception, right? 

The "relationship problems" are not inconsequential. Just to illustrate my point, the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder, usually at the hands of their intimate partners.

Problems women face can might be easily glossed over when they are the ones absorbing the injury, loss, and pain. But they shouldn't be.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not really. That implies an equivalence between the woman and the unborn inside her. But the circumstances for each of these persons is not equivalent. 

"Each of these persons is not equivalent."

Hmm.

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And your remark also imo implies an equivalence between the woman's stewardship over her body and the states stewardship over her body, and those are again not the same.

I don't think anyone is suggesting such an equivalence.  Bodily autonomy is a very important principle.  But it's not absolute.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 3, 2022 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I would say, if you have secular reasons to support something, and those secular reason align with religious belief, then promote those secular reasons.

You were trying to make the argument that abortion should be legal on the basis that religious beliefs should stay out of legislation.  Well, when your religious beliefs align with your conscience (which I feel pretty safe assuming is the case for probably all religious based pro-lifers, then you are making a distinction without a difference.   Your argument isn't going to make religious...I mean conscientious (lets keep it secular, after all)...pro-lifers go away.  Your argument changes nothing. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The "relationship problems" are not inconsequential.

Nor is the life of the unborn child.  

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Just to illustrate my point, the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder, usually at the hands of their intimate partners.

The intentional taking of a human life without just cause is indeed a terrible thing.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Problems women face can might be easily glossed over when they are the ones absorbing the injury, loss, and pain. But they shouldn't be.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not really. That implies an equivalence between the woman and the unborn inside her. But the circumstances for each of these persons is not equivalent. 

Circumstances are not equivalent between any two human beings.  But we are all equivalently human.  That, for me, is worthy of protections from being killed. 

56 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And your remark also imo implies an equivalence between the woman's stewardship over her body and the states stewardship over her body, and those are again not the same.

You are speaking of only women and states here.  But there is more to the story than that.  You are leaving out the other human being in the equation.  I think that has intrinsic value worthy of consideration and inclusion in the discussion in such matters. 

If there were truly only women and states involved, then I would agree with you 100%  

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by pogi

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

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.

ship sailed on that a long time ago.  There are many laws that allow people to sue civilly for enforcement. RICO is one that has been talked about on this board a lot. 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Circumstances are not equivalent between any two human beings.  But we are all equivalently human.  

You are speaking of only women and states here.  But there is more to the story than that.  You are leaving out the other human being in the equation.  I think that has intrinsic value worthy of consideration and inclusion in the discussion in such matters. 

If there were truly only women and states involved, then I would agree with you 100%  

 

 

 

I did acknowledge the unborn person. My two paragraphs addressed two different dynamics in this. First is that between the people directly involved: the woman and her unborn child/ren.

The second dynamic is those with power and/or trying to exert power: the woman and the state.

I think that humanity would be better by respecting the domains in which they inhabit: the individual and collective domains have been long contemplated. But there is a third domain in which all of us live at some point: the womb. This domain belongs to the woman. I am convinced that if we are better at respecting this domain and her, welfare of women, children, and unborn people will improve and so will humanity as a whole.

I wish religious people could consider for a moment how they trust God with life and death. Their God/s give and take life, as all life is in God's domain. Consider that and apply that to the domain of the womb. Consider a woman as the goddess of her womb and give her the respect that demands.

 

[strappinglad]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bodily autonomy is a very important principle.  But it's not absolute.

If you die under suspicious circumstances, your body can be held by the State for as long as it wants. 

[mtomm]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I imagine legislatures will be crafting procedures for this.

I suppose we'll see.  

I think a claim of rape is never "a nice thing to say."  

I think it could readily be accompblished in most cases.  

"Worthy of an abortion?"  

If a woman is sexually assaulted, a pregnancy test can ascertain pregnancy in a matter of days.  During this time the woman can file a police report.  I could see a state legislature creating a protocol that allows for the "morning after" pill, and further steps if that is not feasible.

One thing you may be missing is that you are focusing on a tiny exception, rather than the general rule.  Per this article, "{j}ust 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute."

I am in favor of a nuanced and reasonable legal approach to the 1% of abortions that are rape-related.  Meanwhile, however, the vast majority of abortions do not implicate this principle.

Thanks,

-Smac

"a nice thing to say" that they can be an exception, not referring to a claim of rape. 

Murder is also rare where I come from but we don't discount the importance of having laws to govern it. And according to the people on my FB news feed there are so many abortion performed each year that 1% is still going to be a lot of abortions. 
I say these exceptions are a nice sentiment but they are going to be terribly difficult to put in place in real life and have a women/girl retain any dignity or confidentiality.
Worthy: "having or showing the qualities or abilities that merit recognition in a specified way."  Will the person who gets to decide if she is telling the truth about her pregnancy (because someone will have to decide  because it cannot be her) deem her credible enough to allow her the abortion?  What if they think she is not telling the truth? What if she just isn't credible enough? How long will it take to prove incest or rape? Do I have to prove it or can I just claim it? I wonder why so few rapes are currently reported?  
It makes them functionally not exceptions. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I imagine legislatures will be crafting procedures for this.

I suppose we'll see.  

I think a claim of rape is never "a nice thing to say."  

I think it could readily be accomplished in most cases.  

"Worthy of an abortion?"  

If a woman is sexually assaulted, a pregnancy test can ascertain pregnancy in a matter of days.  During this time the woman can file a police report.  I could see a state legislature creating a protocol that allows for the "morning after" pill, and further steps if that is not feasible.

One thing you may be missing is that you are focusing on a tiny exception, rather than the general rule.  Per this article, "{j}ust 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute."

I am in favor of a nuanced and reasonable legal approach to the 1% of abortions that are rape-related.  Meanwhile, however, the vast majority of abortions do not implicate this principle.

Thanks,

-Smac

But what do we do with the girl or woman who is raped but doesn't report it?  Who doesn't want to deal with even the idea of being pregnant after something so incredibly traumatic so doesn't take a pregnancy test, and the pregnancy isn't confirmed until she is well into the 2nd trimester?

I think the problem that mtomm is highlighting is two fold.  First, real world examples of pregnancy after rape are highly unlikely to consistently follow the process you've outlined above.  So we have to have a way to deal with all of the ones that fall outside of those neat and tidy parameters.

And second, some legislatures are incredibly ignorant of the way that pregnancy and reproduction work in women.  This is a little terrifying when we consider that these same people are trying to make laws that deal with those two things.  We have examples of legislatures in the country trying to make a law limiting abortion to before 6 weeks that didn't even know that pregnancy dates are calculated using first day of the last period and that when a woman is considered 6 weeks pregnant her period actually only 2 weeks late (something that a woman with an irregular period might not even know yet). 

Given that, it's not a reassuring thing to know that legislatures will "be crafting procedures" to deal with girls and women who become pregnant after rape.  

And I say all of this as someone who believes that rape is only ever moral in situations of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and someone who favors conservative abortion legislation.

I can also admit that trying to legislate my beliefs about this would be incredibly complicated and very difficult to succeed at in the real world.  In today's political climate, I think it would be impossible to accomplish for all intents and purposes.  

Edited May 3, 2022 by bluebell

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

"a nice thing to say" that they can be an exception, not referring to a claim of rape. 

Still an odd thing to say, though.

7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Murder is also rare where I come from but we don't discount the importance of having laws to govern it.

That's something of a non sequitur.  I am not discounting the importance of allowing for an exception to a general rule prohibiting elective abortions.  Murder, meanwhile, has no such corollary function as an "exception."

7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

And according to the people on my FB news feed there are so many abortion performed each year that 1% is still going to be a lot of abortions. 

And yet still comprise only about 1% or so of abortions overall.  Meanwhile, the mast majority of abortions - being elective - will hopefully begin to fall.

7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I say these exceptions are a nice sentiment but they are going to be terribly difficult to put in place in real life and have a women/girl retain any dignity or confidentiality.

A pretty big leap, that.

I'm sure there will be some challenges ahead.  But since the lives of millions of children are at stake, I think the challenges are worthwhile.

7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Worthy: "having or showing the qualities or abilities that merit recognition in a specified way."  Will the person who gets to decide if she is telling the truth about her pregnancy (because someone will have to decide  because it cannot be her) deem her credible enough to allow her the abortion? 

Rape is a crime.  False reporting of a crime is itself a crime.

The protocols and procedures for these things will be sorted out in time.

7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

What if they think she is not telling the truth? What if she just isn't credible enough? How long will it take to prove incest or rape? Do I have to prove it or can I just claim it? I wonder why so few rapes are currently reported? 

It makes them functionally not exceptions. 

Putting the cart before the horse, methinks.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I did acknowledge the unborn person. My two paragraphs addressed two different dynamics in this. First is that between the people directly involved: the woman and her unborn child/ren.

I was talking specifically about your second point (which was distinct from your first) regarding the woman and the state.  Your point neglected to include the other human involved in the equation.  

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that humanity would be better by respecting the domains in which they inhabit: the individual and collective domains have been long contemplated. But there is a third domain in which all of us live at some point: the womb. This domain belongs to the woman. I am convinced that if we are better at respecting this domain and her, welfare of women, children, and unborn people will improve and so will humanity as a whole.

Yes, the womb belongs to the woman, and the penis to the man.  This bodily autonomy and ownership of domain doesn't make it right to violate other humans with our body parts.  When it comes to the unborn child, that is the domain of both the man and the woman.

I am not convinced that the welfare of the unborn will improve, as you suggest, if left without protections. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If a woman is sexually assaulted, a pregnancy test can ascertain pregnancy in a matter of days.  During this time the woman can file a police report.  I could see a state legislature creating a protocol that allows for the "morning after" pill, and further steps if that is not feasible.

We must take into account the emotional state of the woman, who after rape may not be able to talk about it for quite sometime.  Given the low percentage of rapes that are reported now, I don’t see how tying abortion to a rape is going to be moral as it forces the woman to act in ways she would not by choice and maybe cannot act.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Murder, meanwhile, has no such corollary function as an "exception."

Self defense? 

[MustardSeed]

Here’s just one thing that concerns me that I haven’t seen discussed yet.  If this gets pushed to states,  this being the OG of all dividing topics IMO, will it then lead to more people moving all over the country to hunker in states that hold their values?  I live in a state that does not align with me politically but it’s my home.  Always has been.   Will it be necessary for me to eventually leave my home and move elsewhere?

At that point I believe we drop the United and just call ourselves The States of America. 
 

 

[Nofear]

A summary of some commonality among citizens of the US on abortion.
https://www.allsides.com/blog/there-any-common-ground-abortion

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But what do we do with the girl or woman who is raped but doesn't report it? Who doesn't want to deal with even the idea of being pregnant after something so incredibly traumatic so doesn't take a pregnancy test, and the pregnancy isn't confirmed until she is well into the 2nd trimester?

I suspect various jurisdictions will develop protocols and procedures for this sort of thing.

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the problem that mtomm is highlighting is two fold.  First, real world examples of pregnancy after rape are highly unlikely to consistently follow the process you've outlined above.  So we have to have a way to deal with all of the ones that fall outside of those neat and tidy parameters.

Could you elaborate?  We seem to be talking in big generalities here.

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And second, some legislatures are incredibly ignorant of the way that pregnancy and reproduction work in women. 

So let's educate them.  

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a little terrifying when we consider that these same people are trying to make laws that deal with those two things. 

Legislatures have also been making laws that have legalized the elective killing of tens of millions of unborn babies.  Seems like the legislature's job is fraught with peril either way.

The difference, though, is that now the legislatures will have more control, more accountability, and so on.  

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We have examples of legislatures in the country trying to make a law limiting abortion to before 6 weeks that didn't even know that pregnancy dates are calculated using first day of the last period and that when a woman is considered 6 weeks pregnant her period actually only 2 weeks late (something that a woman with an irregular period might not even know yet). 

Given that, it's not a reassuring thing to know that legislatures will "be crafting procedures" to deal with girls and women who become pregnant after rape.  

This seems like an eminently fixable thing, though.  By all means let's make sure legislatures are properly equipped with clinical and objective medical data as they craft legislation to manage this very difficult issue.

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And I say all of this as someone who believes that rape is only ever moral in situations of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, and someone who favors conservative abortion legislation.

And yet the status quo for 50 years has been based on the say-so of a handful of life-tenured, unaccountable judges.  Now it looks like state legislatures will be the ones needing to craft policy.  

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can also admit that trying to legislate my beliefs about this would be incredibly complicated and very difficult to succeed at in the real world. 

I've never liked the formulation of "legislat{ing} my beliefs," as it makes it sound like religionists are doing something wrong when voting and legislating according to their conscience.  Atheists and agnostics never profess unease about them legislating their beliefs.

This is not a "Church and State" issue.  Religious people can enact their preferences and moral judgment calls to their heart's delight, as long as they do so in compliance with the Constitution.  As regarding abortion, the issue is left to the states and their elected legislatures to decide how to proceed.

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In today's political climate, I think it would be impossible to accomplish for all intents and purposes.  

Getting rid of slavery was even more difficult, and yet it was still worthwhile.

And William Wilberforce did so based on religious conviction.  How very, very awesome that was.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Here’s just one thing that concerns me that I haven’t seen discussed yet.  If this gets pushed to states,  this being the OG of all dividing topics IMO, will it then lead to more people moving all over the country to hunker in states that hold their values?  I live in a state that does not align with me politically but it’s my home.  Always has been.   Will it be necessary for me to eventually leave my home and move elsewhere?

At that point I believe we drop the United and just call ourselves The States of America. 
 

 

I don't think I would ever move over this issue.  I have more influence in my state, than out.  I think it is more likely that the only people who will be moving are people seeking an abortion where it is illegal in their state. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

We must take into account the emotional state of the woman, who after rape may not be able to talk about it for quite sometime.  

Okay.  But we must also craft legislation.  

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the low percentage of rapes that are reported now, I don’t see how tying abortion to a rape is going to be moral as it forces the woman to act in ways she would not by choice and maybe cannot act.

I would think that the change in the law would be an inducement to report.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Self defense? 

I don't follow.  When is murder "self-defense"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 3, 2022 by smac97

[carbon dioxide]

Abortion is not that important to me.  What I can't stand in the inconsistency in the law.  A woman can have a right to an abortion because it is her body.  However prostitution and drugs like cocaine are illegal.  I should be able to do anything with my body including put whatever I want in it without going to jail.  It is absurd to be thrown in jail for committing an act against yourself.  If abortion is legal then prostitution and all drug use should be legal.  If prostitution and drug use is illegal, then abortion can be made illegal.  Right now the laws are all over the map.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't follow.  When is murder "self-defense"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Killing is something covered by all sorts of laws. For the most part forbidden. Wether it’s murder, manslaughter, euthanasia, or self defense. Despite self defense being the very rare exception to the general rule we spend a lot of time on it. 

[carbon dioxide]

Another thing that annoys me are those who say Roe vs, Wade is the law of the land.  NO it is not.  The supreme court is not a law making body.  It consists of judges not lawmakers.  All laws are made in congress. The court simply is like refs who decide whether something is constitutional or legal.  I does not make the rules or laws anymore than a ref in a basketball game can make the rules. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I imagine legislatures will be crafting procedures for this.

Yep, and if current abortion laws being drafted are any indication the procedure will be humiliating, laborious, and out of the realistic reach of many of the disadvantaged.

It is the American Way!

USA! USA! USA!