It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect Pogi was presupposing a medical/scientific/biological framework for evaluaing what is "'in the best interest' of an otherwise healthy fetus."

 

Unless one assumes that any life is better than no life, which is a value judgment just as speculative as any religious position, I don’t see how a biological etc framework requires life as “in the best interest”….especially given it is scientists, biologists, and doctors who are often supportive of abortion when they see a much less than ideal life potential.  Nonexistence when compared to much of life is not a negative in many people’s views.  Living just to survive is a poor way of life, imo, and from a scientific pov is more genetic programming of instincts than a rational benefit to a particular individual.  There is no way their descendants can improve the quality of life of a dead ancestor.  And at least for 18 years is unlikely to be an economic benefit. Poverty is highest for single women with children and iirc, they are least upwardly mobile. 

Arguments that life is in the best interest of an individual are emotion based, imo, whatever the approach.

You say “otherwise healthy”…are you okay then with making a judgment for abortion when the fetus is likely not to be “otherwise healthy, but still viable”?  If not, perhaps you shouldn’t change your phrasing. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm a pro choice and pro life person, I believe the planned parenthood facilities should be supported in order to avoid pregnancy. There's so many lines that can be crossed here, that we need to do better in all areas, couples that have sex should take every precaution in what they are about to do and the outcome of it, needless to say. I guess this overturning Roe vs Wade could have a good outcome if it makes everyone stop and think. And maybe think tanks out there will supply the better way. 

 

Agreed.

I don't want abortion illegal, but I'm also very sick at heart to keep reading stories of famous/celebrity women tweet or writing about how their abortions were absolutely no big deal and "easy".  Women and men need to take more responsibility for the lives that they are creating.  And ending those lives shouldn't be as easy as deciding to go get starbucks or see a movie.

"It’s so easy: I played in Texas the same week, and then I went home and was like: oh my G**. Made the appointment. It was 12 hours of my life.”

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In my opinion, judicial review is inevitable where you have a written constitution that is explicitly "the supreme law of the land."  Courts often have to adjudicate between conflicting laws and decide which law is controlling or applicable.  Where there is a conflict between a statuary law and the "supreme law of the land," what else is a court supposed to do?  It must rule that the "supreme law of the land" is controlling and that the conflicting law has no valid force.

Marbury v Madison was rather clever in establishing this principle.  By abandoning a minor additional power granted to it by Congress, it established a precedent that granted it much greater authority in future cases.  One of the parties in MvM wanted the court to issue a writ of mandamus, and the court judged that even though an act of Congress had granted it the authority to do so, the constitution did not grant SCOTUS the authority to grant such a writ.  With two laws in conflict, the court reasoned that the constitution had precedent and was the controlling authority.  The court did not therefore have the congressionally-granted authority to issue the writ. It was the judicial equivalent of a humble brag. 

I admit part of me thinks it would be hilarious if the courts overturned Marbury vs. Madison. It would be catastrophic…..but also very entertaining to watch everyone pick up the pieces.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If there really is a sincere concern, it should be demonstrated in understanding the moral dilemma and sending aid, certainly not just in trying to criminalise, if at all. 

I think there could be room for both, depending on the circumstances.  I think that for many abortion is a heart wrenching decision that comes from dealing with incredibly difficult circumstances.  But I won't pretend that every abortion is like that. 

Abortions for convenience due to irresponsibility exist (and are currently being celebrated in the media) and I don't believe that both types should be viewed or treated equally.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the woman is likely the primary caregiver for the first 18 years of the child’s life. It is ridiculous to ignore her opinion of what that life will likely entail and what she is able, unable, willing, and unwilling to do as well as the impact on the rest of her family members whose needs she is likely most aware of and is again the one most likely going to be fulfilling them.

Yes, clearly it would be ridiculous to ignore her opinion on what life might entail, but it would be equally ridiculous to suggest that she knows that the child would be better off dead, or that it wouldn't choose life despite the hardship (as countless others have done under unimaginable hardship).  We simply can't/shouldn't make that decision for others, especially when we are so blinded by personal bias of hardship. 

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the government wants more say in whether or not an embryo becomes a child, it should get more involved in providing for the fetus and child. It seems to me a lot of lawmakers are wanting the benefits of control without the responsibility as much, if not more than many women who choose abortion.

  Amen to that. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It doesn't matter what you think about bias. The unborn is in her. She is the steward, regardless of what people or laws say. Any form of control will be counterproductive. But support? Support can change the world. 

Let go of the premise that we can control women's bodies and embrace the concept of respecting women and supporting the awesome responsibilities conveyed to them.

"Steward" is a good word.  If only it was viewed in that way, then this would hardly be an issue.  You are correct that the mother (both parents really) are the primary stewards of the child, but they are not the only stewards.  Where stewardship of parents fail, others are morally obligated to step in.  We are stewards over all of God's creation, including our brothers and sisters.  I am my brother's keeper.   Should we turn a blind eye to a parent beating or molesting their child and say "well, they are the stewards, I have no stewardship or moral obligation here!"  Does one think, "that mother just needs more support", or do they call child protective services to protect the child whilst that mother gets the support and help she needs to be better stewards of her children?   Is all form of "control" aka legislation, counterproductive to the wellbeing of the child?   "Support can change the world" in the absence of protective law is a naive and idealistic unreality.   While I agree with you in principle, I am no anarchist because I am more of a realist than that.  The law protects those who cannot protect themselves from those who need support and don't get it, or have all the support they need but still make poor and selfish decisions.  

Let go of the premise that this is all about women's bodies.  There are other bodies directly involved that deserve advocacy. 

If I had it my way, we would invest HEAVILY in support for mothers and children and prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  I am all about prevention and support of women and children.   But I would not remove the safety net for those children who need stewards where their primary stewards fail in their stewardship. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

I suspect Pogi was presupposing a medical/scientific/biological framework for evaluaing what is "'in the best interest' of an otherwise healthy fetus."

Unless one assumes that any life is better than no life,

That's an assumption that becomes pretty disturbing when A) Party X renders it relative to the life of Party Y, and/or B) the government renders or allows it to be so rendered.

In other words, this assumption is the foundational premise of eugenics.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

JEFF DUNETZ: After SCOTUS Abortion Decision, CNN’s Ana Navarro Pushes Eugenics.

Ana Navarro, a pseudo “GOP strategist” and a CNN commentator shocked the news channel’s audiences on Friday when she said that she supports abortion to kill off autistic and mentally challenged people like her own family. In other words, she supports eugenics.

Navarro’s words sounded like those of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger created the organization to practice eugenics–a sick belief that the human “gene pool” would be improved through selective breeding and sterilization. In Sanger’s case, improving the gene pool meant keeping African-Americans, morons, those with a family background with a history of illnesses, mental disease (like Ana?)  serious physical defects, and other undesirables from reproducing.

Perhaps she should used the original German phrase, “Lebensunwertes Leben.”

From the last link above:

Quote

The phrase "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben) was a Nazi designation for the segments of the populace which according to the Nazi regime had no right to live. Those individuals were targeted to be murdered by the state ("euthanized"), usually through the compulsion or deception of their caretakers. The term included people with serious medical problems and those considered grossly inferior according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany. This concept formed an important component of the ideology of Nazism and eventually helped lead to the Holocaust. It is similar to but more restrictive than the concept of Untermensch, subhumans, as not all "subhumans" were considered unworthy of life (Slavs, for instance, were deemed useful for slave labor).

The "euthanasia" program was officially adopted in 1939 and came through the personal decision of Adolf Hitler. It grew in extent and scope from Aktion T4 ending officially in 1941 when public protests stopped the program, through the Action 14f13 against concentration camp inmates. The euthanasia of certain cultural and religious groups and those with physical and mental disabilities continued more discreetly until the end of World War II. The methods used initially at German hospitals such as lethal injections and bottled gas poisoning were expanded to form the basis for the creation of extermination camps where the gas chambers were built from scratch to conduct the extermination of the Jews, Romani, communists, anarchists, and political dissidents.

And here:

Quote

Nazi eugenics refers to the social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany. The racial ideology of Nazism placed the biological improvement of the German people by selective breeding of "Nordic" or "Aryan" traits at its center.^[1]

Eugenics research in Germany before and during the Nazi period was similar to that in the United States (particularly California), by which it had been heavily inspired. However, its prominence rose sharply under Adolf Hitler's leadership when wealthy Nazi supporters started heavily investing in it. The programs were subsequently shaped to complement Nazi racial policies.^[2]

Those targeted for destruction under Nazi eugenics policies were largely people living in private and state-operated institutions, identified as "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben). They included prisoners, degenerates, dissidents, and people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (erbkranken)- people who were considered to be feeble-minded. In fact being diagnosed with "feeblemindedness" (in German, Schwachsinn) was the main label approved in forced sterilization,^[3] which included people who were diagnosed by a doctor as, or otherwise seemed to be:

• Epileptic
• Schizophrenic^[4]
• Manic-depressive (now known as bipolar)
• Cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophy
• Deaf and/or blind
• Homosexual or "transvestites" (which at the time was used to refer to intersex and transgender people, particularly trans women^[5][6])
• Anyone else considered to be idle, insane, and/or weak as per "feeblemindedness"

All of these were targeted for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while up to 300,000 were killed under the Aktion T4 euthanasia program.^{[7][8][9][10]} Thousands more also died from complications of the forced surgeries, the majority being women from forced tubal ligations.^[3]

Alas, it is to our everlasting shame that the origins of Nazi eugenics-related actions was heavily influenced by ideas from . . . the United States:

Quote

The early German eugenics movement was led by Wilhelm Schallmayer and Alfred Ploetz.^[13][14] Henry Friedlander wrote that although the German and American eugenics movements were similar, the German movement was more centralized and did not contain as many diverse ideas as the American movement.^[14] Unlike the American movement, one publication and one society, the German Society for Racial Hygiene, represented all eugenicists.^[14]

Edwin Black wrote that after the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it was spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.^[15] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California's.^[2]

In 1927, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology (KWIA), an organization which concentrated on physical and social anthropology as well as human genetics, was founded in Berlin with significant financial support from the American philanthropic group, the Rockefeller Foundation.^[16] German professor of medicine, anthropology and eugenics Eugen Fischer was the director of this organization, a man whose work helped provide the scientific basis for the Nazis' eugenics policies.^[17][18] The Rockefeller Foundation even funded some of the research conducted by Josef Mengele before he went to Auschwitz.^[15]

Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague:

You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought... I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.^[15]

Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.^[19] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler's 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the "science of racial cleansing". Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the "common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics."^[20]

Yeesh.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

which is a value judgment just as speculative as any religious position,

This seems way too reductionist for me.  Is criminalizing rape or sexual abuse of children "a value judgment just as speculative as any religious position?"  Can the forced sterilization and/or killing of homosexuals to be reasonably characterized in this way?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t see how a biological etc framework requires life as “in the best interest”….especially given it is scientists, biologists, and doctors who are often supportive of abortion when they see a much less than ideal life potential.  

"Supportive of abortion" for others, yes?  

Are these "scientists, biologists, and doctors" willing to let their lives be terminated based on some other person's assessment of whether their lives are "in the best interest?"

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Nonexistence when compared to much of life is not a negative in many people’s views.  

Nonexistence of other people, yes?  These "views" held by "many people" necessarily pertain to other people than themselves, right?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Living just to survive is a poor way of life, imo,

And should you decide to kill yourself rather than "live just to survive," that would be your choice.

But if and when you interpose your assessment onto another person, and do so without consulting them and/or against their will, then that changes things quite a bit, right?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

and from a scientific pov is more genetic programming of instincts than a rational benefit to a particular individual.

Not sure what you are saying here.  "Science" has little to say about whether a child with Down Syndrome would be "better off" killed in utero.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is no way their descendants can improve the quality of life of a dead ancestor.  And at least for 18 years is unlikely to be an economic benefit. Poverty is highest for single women with children and iirc, they are least upwardly mobile. 

And yet I think it is a terrible thing to say that women and their children are better of dead than poor.  And I think it is a terrible thing to take away that choice from another person without her/his input or consent.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Arguments that life is in the best interest of an individual are emotion based, imo, whatever the approach.

I don't think so.  We can look at history and see the consequences of Party X getting to decide whether Party Y (without Party's input or consent) is better of dead than poor, or Jewish, or gay, or epileptic.  The Germans decided this on behalf of Jews, gays, Poles, and many others.  The United States decided this for centuries on behalf of slaves and Native Americans.  

The Constitution protects the right to, inter alia, be protected against "be{ing} deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  I don't think that is an "emotion based" argument.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You say “otherwise healthy”…are you okay then with making a judgment for abortion when the fetus is likely not to be “otherwise healthy, but still viable”?  If not, perhaps you shouldn’t change your phrasing. 

The Church's position seems a pretty good policy summary: 

Quote

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2022 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Unless one assumes that any life is better than no life, which is a value judgment just as speculative as any religious position, I don’t see how a biological etc framework requires life as “in the best interest”….especially given it is scientists, biologists, and doctors who are often supportive of abortion when they see a much less than ideal life potential.  Nonexistence when compared to much of life is not a negative in many people’s views.  Living just to survive is a poor way of life, imo, and from a scientific pov is more genetic programming of instincts than a rational benefit to a particular individual.  There is no way their descendants can improve the quality of life of a dead ancestor.  And at least for 18 years is unlikely to be an economic benefit. Poverty is highest for single women with children and iirc, they are least upwardly mobile. 

Arguments that life is in the best interest of an individual are emotion based, imo, whatever the approach.

You say “otherwise healthy”…are you okay then with making a judgment for abortion when the fetus is likely not to be “otherwise healthy, but still viable”?  If not, perhaps you shouldn’t change your phrasing. 

Suicide is controversial enough, but mercy killings without consent is hardly in question.  My position is that if life is not worth living for some, no one should be able to make that decision for another who will be capable of making that decision for themselves.  Because that is not true for all, or even most people.  

Do you feel that we should supporting otherwise healthy young children in committing suicide?  I highly doubt it.  Such arguments made above are not convincing to me in such a scenario, and they don't work here for the same reasons.  The absence of consent makes abortion even more problematic than assisted suicide of children. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes! Making abortion impossible does not magically make the life work out for the child, if the child is born.

Do you think the child should have a say in whether or not his life is worth living, even if difficult?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It is a fool's errand to dictate continuing gestation as a solution.

Gestation of . . . what?  As a solution for . . . what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Suicide is controversial enough, but mercy killings without consent is hardly in question.  My position is that if life is not worth living, than no one should be able to make that decision for another who will be capable of making that decision for themselves.  

Do you feel that we should supporting otherwise healthy young children in committing suicide?  I highly doubt it.  Such arguments made above are not convincing to me in such a scenario, and they don't work here for the same reasons.  The absence of consent makes abortion even more problematic than assisted suicide of children. 

I am not saying making the assumption that life is good is wrong.  That is an assumption I make myself.  I am just saying I don’t think it can be demonstrated to be inherently superior.  Nor do I think the assumption can be proven that strangers will make an inherently better decision for an embryo than its mother….especially when those strangers do not evidence care of the embryo in other ways.  You want me to trust that someone else should make a decision about a child and a potential child…show me they are willing to provide for and protect them in more than just stopping abortions.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That it arises from a necessary and appropriate interpretation of the text of the Constitution, but that it is quite susceptible to overreach and abuse.

Yes, that idea gets floated when one political party (or politician, often POTUS) or the other doesn't get their way.  

It's a bit schizophrenic to be upset about the Dobbs case overturning Roe and use it (Dobbs) as a basis to disregard judicial review when Roe was itself a manifestation of it (judicial review) in the first instance.

By way of example of why judicial review is an important check on governmental overreach (despite itself being susceptable to "overreaching"), see here:

And here:

And here:

And here (from 2012) :

And here (also from 2012) :

And here (also from 2012) :

I am a big fan of "judicial review" and "judicial restraint," while I am decidedly not a fan of "judicial activism" and "judicial overreach."  Alas, these last three (judicial "restraint," "activism" and "overreach") are somewhat subjective and amorphous. 

For me, "judicial review" should function as a check on the power of government, not as a means of expanding it.

That's not quite right.  See here:

I think that last paragraph, though perhaps not artfully drafted, includes the main "beats" of the justification for judicial review.

See above.

I'm not sure how to answer this question.  You are using the passive voice.  Who would be doing the "ignoring?"  It what context?

If you look at some of the articles above you will see examples about what can happen without judicial review.  Cobnsider what happened in 2009 in Nicaragua:

More info here:

The Supreme Court of Nicaragua (a portion of it, anyway) held that a portion of that country's constitution . . . was unconstitutional.

Ironically, it is the same people who want to argue that "judicial review" is undemocratic who want to dispose of it so that they can do undemocratic things and get away with it.  From the same link as above:

If a person or party ("X") is in political power and doesn't like a law, X can - in the absence of judicial review - just ignore or re-write or toss out the law.

That's a tempting in-the-moment thing for X and those who politically/ideologically align themselves with X, but what happens when someone else ("Y") gains power and does the same thing, and X doesn't like it?

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injury More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

More was, in many ways, a moral man (though the conflation of civil and sectarian authority created some terrible circumstances in which he participated - see, here, here, here, here).  Moreover, as a legal scholar, he knew the risks of letting his emotions predominate over his intellect, and over the law.

When Politician X rails against judicial review, you can bet dollars to donuts that the day will come when X will turn 180 degrees and insist on judicial review.  Without judicial review, we run the risk of a Will Roper-type of person who wants to "{c}ut a great road through the law," only to later realize that the devil he is pursuing has "turne 'round" on him, and that he is left without recourse due to "the laws all being flat."

To paraphrase the (fictionalized) More: "Yes, I give {judicial review} benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are not a fan of former President Donald Trump.  Let us further assume a hypothetical scenario in which he, in late 2020 - while he was still in office - refused to relinquish the Presidency, and that he does so by using his powers as POTUS to excise and/or ignore and/or rewrite all provisions in the Constitution that limit his presidency to four years.  For example, he re-writes Article II, Section 1 to state: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.  He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years or for such other length of time he deems necessary and appropriate, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term."

Absurd as this sounds, could a sufficiently popular POTUS get away with re-writing the Constitution?  It happened in Nicaragua, after all (see above), so why not here?

This sort of thing happens more often than you think.  See, e.g., here:

In my view, judicial review is an important means of constraining governmental overreach and abuse, both as to intra-governmental power struggles and government-versus-individuals power struggles.  See, e.g., here:

Again, "judicial review" should function as a check on the power of government, not as a means of expanding it.

For me, Roe represented an abuse of "judicial review," and Dobbs represents an appropriate application of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to lay this out.

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not saying making the assumption that life is good is wrong.  That is an assumption I make myself.  I am just saying I don’t think it can be demonstrated to be inherently superior.  Nor do I think the assumption can be proven that strangers will make an inherently better decision for an embryo than its mother….especially when those strangers do not evidence care of the embryo in other ways.  You want me to trust that someone else should make a decision about a child and a potential child…show me they are willing to provide for and protect them in more than just stopping abortions.

Do you support assisted suicide of non-terminal and otherwise healthy children?  Why or why not?  Bear with me on this one. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by pogi

[Nofear]

The is a LDS pro-choice take on the matter: https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/06/26/asking-the-right-questions-four-theses-on-framing-the-abortion-debate/
I do not represent that position in my own opinion. I think it misses the mark in many respects.

On a slightly different note, I state that I am personally quite in favor of the Church's position. I also do not think that everything that is moral should be legislated. A society's ability to tolerate moral law is something to be considered (e.g. alcohol consumption is objectively bad for society in its present form, but neither will we tolerate prohibition so we try to mitigate the harms (somewhat ineffectually)). The point being that I think it is reasonable to be pro-life and yet tolerate some degree of pro-choice. Curiously, with the overturning of Roe v Wade, many on the pro-choice side would expand the legal countenance of abortion well beyond what Roe v Wade allowed.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not saying making the assumption that life is good is wrong.  That is an assumption I make myself.  

What if we call this a conclusion rather than an assumption?

To "assume" something is to "to take for granted or without proof" ("take for granted," meanwhile, means to "assume that something is true without questioning it"), whereas to "conclude" something is to "to determine by reasoning; deduce; infer."

By way of analogy, when I want to file a lawsuit, I do so by preparing and submitting to the court a "Complaint" that includes a factual recitation of what has happened pertaining to the dispute between the parties.  I then take a copy of this document and deliver it to the defendant.  The defendant's attorney reads it and can generally dispute it by A) filing a response to it (an "Answer"), or else B) by filing a "Motion to Dismiss."  As to this second option, a "Motion to Dismiss" is filed when the defendant believes that the plaintiff cannot, under any circumstance, win on "the law."  For example, if a complaint is for a breach of contract claim, and if the complaint states that the breach occurred 15 years ago (the statute of limitations for breach of contract claims in Utah is 6 years), then the defendant can argue that the case should be dismissed.  

Because a Motiont to Dismiss is filed before the parties have conducted any discovery (actions to gather evidence for/against the claims in the Complaint), the court - as well as any appellate court reviewing the trial court's decision - has to adopt a somewhat unique stance when reading the Motion to Dismiss:  "In reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss, we '"accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to [the] plaintiff[s]."'" Nebeker v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 2001 UT 74,¶2, 34 P.3d 180 (citations omitted).  

Put another way, the trial court assumes the Plaintiff's recitation of factual allegations to "be true," and also "draw{s} all reasonable inferences" in favor of the Plaintiff.  The trial court gives the benefit of the doubt to the Plaintiff.  But this is only for the purposes of the trial court evaluating the Motion to Dismiss.  If the Motion to Dismiss is denied, the lawsuit proceeds and the assumption in favor of the Plaintiff disappears.

After a lawsuit has been filed and a Motion to Dismiss has been denied, the parties investigate the dispute.  At some point one side or the other will typically file a "Motion for Summary Judgment" which gets the same result as a "Motion to Dismiss" (if granted, the case is over), but the process is very different.  Where the Plaintiff has a clear advantage in a "Motion to Dismiss" setting, he has no such advantage in a "Motion for Summary Judgment" context.  The moving party, either the plaintiff or the defendant, can, when seeking summary judgment, present a concise "marshaling of evidence" to show what the "facts" of the case are.  Each material "fact" must be separately stated in its own paragraph, and must be supported by citation to probative and admissible evidence.  If the trial court is persuaded by this marshaling of facts-as-supported-by-competent-evidence, then it (the trial court) can making "findings of fact," that is, conclusions about what actually happened.

So in a "Motion to Dismiss" the trial court assumes facts as being favorable to one party (the plaintiff), and does so without examining evidence.

In a "Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial court makes findings/conclusions about the facts, based on examining the evidence.

I think there is a huge difference between a person saying "I assume, without examination of evidence or reasoning, that life is good" and "I conclude, based on evidence and reasoning, that life is good."

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am just saying I don’t think it can be demonstrated to be inherently superior.

"Demonstrated" in what context?  Legal?  Sociological?  Who gets to decide whether such a demonstration has been established, or not?

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nor do I think the assumption can be proven that strangers will make an inherently better decision for an embryo than its mother….especially when those strangers do not evidence care of the embryo in other ways.  You want me to trust that someone else should make a decision about a child and a potential child…show me they are willing to provide for and protect them in more than just stopping abortions.

Society is a bunch of strangers living together.

Society passes laws to protect its constituent members.

These laws include Safe Harbor laws, adoption laws, foster family laws, funding for various social programs associated with protecting and nurturing children, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

"It’s so easy: I played in Texas the same week, and then I went home and was like: oh my G**. Made the appointment. It was 12 hours of my life.”

"Only 12 hours of your life huh?  Sounds great, but what about my life?  How many hours did it take of that?"  The child might say if she could respond. 

""My body, my choice"???  What about my body and my choice!?" The child might also respond if she could. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by pogi

[Vanguard]

What happens when a pregnant female doesn't want to carry the fetus to term out of simple preference and wants to abort? If she want's remain on the right side of the law and if she lives in a state that does not allow abortion for this reason, will she have to travel to a state that does? I would imagine for those females who do not have the ability to travel to another state there will be others who will readily pitch in for her to travel. But what would happen should the vast majority of states (I believe unlikely) were to make abortion illegal for reasons of simple preference (something I believe pro-lifers would celebrate) thereby making it exceedingly difficult for the female to travel? What happens to her then? Does she by force of law have to carry the baby until birth? Wouldn't that render her sufficiently emotionally/mentally compromised enough to merit having the abortion? But what if by the time this emotional condition were established the fetus were much further along thereby making the procedure considerably more traumatic? Is this what the female would be reduced to?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think there could be room for both, depending on the circumstances.  I think that for many abortion is a heart wrenching decision that comes from dealing with incredibly difficult circumstances.  But I won't pretend that every abortion is like that. 

Abortions for convenience due to irresponsibility exist (and are currently being celebrated in the media) and I don't believe that both types should be viewed or treated equally.

My position as well. There are many options for birth control for most people that abortion shouldn’t be necessary except in unusual circumstances.  It should not be only the thought process of “I am not prepared for having sex, but I really want to have sex right now and I can always get an abortion eventually if I do get pregnant”.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you support assisted suicide of non-terminal and otherwise healthy children?  Why or why not?  Bear with me on this one. 

I make the assumption that life is good. Why would I support it?

[Duncan]

I wonder what the makers of Viagra and similar products think of all this, talk about the dead an all

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I make the assumption that life is good. Why would I support it?

Just to make sure I am clear - even if the mother and the child both disagree with your assumption, would you still not support the legalizing of assisted suicide for non-terminal and otherwise healthy children? 

Edited June 27, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

What happens when a pregnant female doesn't want to carry the fetus to term out of simple preference and wants to abort?

That depends on the jurisdiction and the stage of the pregnancy.  

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

If she want's remain on the right side of the law and if she lives in a state that does not allow abortion for this reason, will she have to travel to a state that does?

Assuming she is at a stage of pregnancy where abortion is prohibited in that jurisdiction, and assuming that there is no applicable exception (rape, incest, etc.), then yes.

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I would imagine for those females who do not have the ability to travel to another state there will be others who will readily pitch in for her to travel.

Also, some employers will pay for abortion-related travel expenses.

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But what would happen should the vast majority of states (I believe unlikely) were to make abortion illegal for reasons of simple preference (something I believe pro-lifers would celebrate) thereby making it exceedingly difficult for the female to travel?

Again, this depends on the jurisdiction and the stage of the pregnancy.  

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

What happens to her then? Does she by force of law have to carry the baby until birth?

No.  The "force of law" did not make her pregnant, nor does it "force" her to remain so.  Biology does that.

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Wouldn't that render her sufficiently emotionally/mentally compromised enough to merit having the abortion?

Again, this depends on the jurisdiction and the stage of the pregnancy.  

I hope that states that are making abortions more difficult will increase funding to help expectant mothers and associated programs (adoptions, etc.).

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But what if by the time this emotional condition were established the fetus were much further along thereby making the procedure considerably more traumatic? Is this what the female would be reduced to?

You will need to define "emotionally/mentally compromised."

thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

This piece provides a bit of proportion and perspective on the issue of abortion:

Quote

The extent to which liberals have gone bananas over the Dobbs case is a phenomenon that demands explanation. Most liberals, after all, understand that the Court has not banned abortion, or in fact placed any limits on it whatsoever. It has simply remitted the issue of abortion to the political sphere where it was prior to 1973, and where it always has belonged, thus ending a half century of usurpation by the Court.

Moreover, abortion laws in the U.S. have been extremely liberal compared with most countries–almost every country other than North Korea, in fact. This chart shows in striking fashion how liberal our laws have been compared with Europe’s:

One of the many ironies of post-Dobbs hysteria was French President Emmanuel Macron denouncing the decision, even though the Mississippi statute that the Court upheld was more permissive, more liberal, than France’s own abortion law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

Elizabeth Warren has suggested they could build abortion clinics at the entrance to National Parks. I'm not a lawyer so would that work? Applicability of State and Local Laws to National Park Service Activities (nps.gov)

Do the laws of states not apply on federal land? Could reservations have abortion clinics? 

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Right to Life in the Old Testament. 

Numbers 31:17-18New International Version

¹⁷ Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, ¹⁸ but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Gotta love that Bible!

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think there could be room for both, depending on the circumstances.  I think that for many abortion is a heart wrenching decision that comes from dealing with incredibly difficult circumstances.  But I won't pretend that every abortion is like that. 

Abortions for convenience due to irresponsibility exist (and are currently being celebrated in the media) and I don't believe that both types should be viewed or treated equally.

But what are the consequences of trying to distinguish between "convenience due to irresponsibility" and genuine good faith trying to do the right thing? There's no way to properly guage that, and there's so much moral hazard in such interference.

I say societies take an approach they haven't fully done: equal rights for women, support for mothers and babies, to put it simply. Make the world a better place for bearing and raising children.

Let's try that instead of wading into the murky waters of policing women's reproductive lives.