It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Although I suspect you and I agree as to the ultimate conclusions to be reached relative to elective abortions, I think the foregoing does not sufficiently take into account the legitimate points being made by the "pro choice" side.  Rights of privacy, bodily autonomy and self-determination are important considerations.  Physical/mental/emotional health implications and risks to the mother are important considerations.  Sociological and financial implications are important.  

To be sure, there are some on the "pro choice" side who take a "no big deal" approach.  Who seem to give little or no thought or consideration or weight to the personhood of the unborn child.  But such abject apathy is not, I think, fairly attributed to the entirety of the "other side" of the debate. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I would replace that with the 'majority,' IMO.

Edited July 5, 2022 by ttribe

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. These laws do treat the woman as a person with another person inside her.

And since she has another person inside her, if she decides to take the life of that person without cause then she will be held accountable for that decision.

 

Hospitals have entire departments to deal with the legal rigors of complying with the law. Are there edge cases that might require additional scrutiny? Sure, but we're not talking about some hospital needing over a year to decide on something.

And again, all states have exceptions for the health of the mother. If her life is legitimately at risk, then an abortion is allowed. 

 

Forced to delay? By whom? 

 

Here's another example of delay: a woman lives in a state that bans abortion after 6 weeks. She doesn't even know she's pregnant till after that. Then she can't afford to travel out of state, and finally when she's saved enough, she's considered late-term.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Why would teddyaware make the following statement? "A reality check for those active Church members who are allowing themselves to be lured away from the Church’s official pro-life position to the so-called pro-choice position on abortion."

I believe there are some Latter-day Saints who think something along the lines of, "well, since the church allows for abortion under certain circumstances then the church's position on abortion is really pro-choice."

I think what teddyaware is trying to say in response to this sentiment is basically that the exceptions don't swallow the rule.

And I suspect he believes President Oaks' remarks support that idea: that, just because there are exceptions when abortion may be tolerated, the church's official position on abortion is strongly weighted in favor of life. 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

I believe most states which have restrictions on late term abortions set viability at 22-24 weeks. I don't know about you, but six out of nine months seems like ample time for a person to "make a decision" in my view.

In your view, sure, but you don't know everyone's situations do you?

Obviously not. Fortunately, that isn't the standard required to pass reasonable, constitutional laws. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, she is. That's why the state should stay out of it, in stead of deciding how she should be responsible or accountable. 

I don't understand your logic here.  When it comes to stewardship over others, I don't think you really agree with this premise of "the state should stay our of it".  We believe in holding others responsible and accountable for their stewardship over others. 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

IOW she is accountable *to herself*. The responsibility starts and stops with her. 

In states where abortion is illegal, she is also accountable for her child.  That is the stewardship we are talking about after all. 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think this is probably the core issue many people might have--the idea that a woman or even any person can be accountable to themselves (and maybe God, directly) and themselves alone is difficult to comprehend. But for women and pregnancy, that how we're made. It's a universe within us.

 Ya, I do have a hard time with the idea of anarchy - which is the idea of every person being "accountable to themselves (and maybe God, directly) and themselves alone".  

There is another human within.  It is not a universe, and it is not the woman - it is another human being.  There is stewardship over this unique and individually distinct human being, and the state commonly gets involved in holding people accountable for their stewardship over other humans.  Not that unusual or unreasonable.    

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

In Utah, for example, the statute covering abortion (76-7-302) sets the cutoff for abortion at viability but - even at that stage - still allows exceptions for health of the mother, severe / fatal birth defects, and when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. 

Hmm.  I'm sort of confused.  I had not realized that Utah was one of the states that allowed for elective "pre-viability" abortions.  But it's right there in the statute (Utah Code sec. 76-7-302) : 

"An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician ... {and} only under the following circumstances ... the unborn child is not viable {meaning that the unborn child has not yet 'reached a stage of fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty'}."

However, this statute seems to conflict with the "trigger" statute, Utah Code sec. 76-7a-201:

Quote

(1)

An abortion may be performed in this state only under the following circumstances: (a) the abortion is necessary to avert: (i) the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or (ii) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; (b) two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine concur, in writing, in the patient's medical record that the fetus: (i) has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable and uniformly lethal; or (ii) has a severe brain abnormality that is uniformly diagnosable; or (c) (i) the woman is pregnant as a result of: (A) rape; (B) rape of a child; or (C) incest; and (ii) before the abortion is performed, the physician who performs the abortion: (A) verifies that the incident described in Subsection (1)(c)(i) has been reported to law enforcement; and (B) if applicable, complies with requirements related to reporting suspicions of or known child abuse.

If I am reading this right, an elective "pre-viable" abortion is allowed under Utah Code sec. 76-7-302(3)(a), but no elective abortions (pre- or post-viability) are allowed under Utah Code sec. 76-7a-201.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 5, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That's not an excuse to police wombs.

Risible terminology notwithstanding, I think preserving the life of the unborn child is a pretty good justification to regulate abortion.

Thanks, 

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Instead of that, imagine a world where abortions were accessible, safe, but rarely used.

You'll need to explain how the "safe, legal and rare" approach has apparently been largely rejected by your side of the debate.  Now we have "#ShoutYourAbortion" and such.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Where instead of trying to force women,

"{F}orce women" to . . . not electively kill their unborn children?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

society helps them or removes obstacles that prevent them from having safe pregnancies and outcomes.

Why "instead of?"  Why can't we do both?  Why can't we place reasonable restrictions on abortion and "help" women and "remove obstacles that prevent them from having safe pregnancies and outcomes?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Here's another example of delay: a woman lives in a state that bans abortion after 6 weeks.

There are two states that have this time constraint: Texas and Ohio.

Per the Guttmacher Institute, "44 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy."

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

She doesn't even know she's pregnant till after that.  Then she can't afford to travel out of state, and finally when she's saved enough, she's considered late-term.

I don't think that she is "considered late-term."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

And since she has another person inside her, if she decides to take the life of that person without cause then she will be held accountable for that decision.

Nope, they are removing her consent to have or not have that person inside her. Without consent, she is treated as less than.

I disagree. Again, using the [previous] UT statute as the backdrop for discussion here, if she both (1) consented to engage in sex to begin with and then (2) consented to carry the child to the point of viability, then she consented to the creation of that person (who now has rights) being inside her. 

At this point, she still has the choice to end that person's life; she just isn't able to do do without consequences. 

That isn't treating the woman as less than a human. It's holding her accountable for her own freely chosen actions, just as we do with every other citizen.

 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Those facilities depend on the hospital and provider. Women have waited in agony for hospital boards to review the legal requirements.

Do you happen to have any data on what the mean review time happens to be?

 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

And again, all states have exceptions for the health of the mother. If her life is legitimately at risk, then an abortion is allowed. 

How do you think that works in real life? 

Fairly well - though I suspect you'll disagree.

 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Forced to delay? By whom? 

Any number of situations can delay the decision to continue or not continue a pregnancy.

I'll give you a realistic scenario. The woman experience relationship breakdown and become a one income household instead of two. Now she cannot take time off work to continue being pregnant safely, or to stay home with her baby once the baby is born. She has other children so she has to think about them, too.

In this scenario, nobody forced her to delay her decision to terminate until the third trimester. Circumstances changed, but circumstances can change at any point. She would be in the same situation if her husband suffered a heart attack and died in the delivery room. At that point, however, it's too late to change your mind about having a baby. You don't have to keep the child, of course, but you don't get to terminate the child's life either.

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Amulek

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, she is. That's why the state should stay out of it, in stead of deciding how she should be responsible or accountable. 

IOW she is accountable *to herself*. The responsibility starts and stops with her. 

The responsibility for . . . the unborn child?  How can the very existence of Person B "start and stop" with Person A?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think this is probably the core issue many people might have--the idea that a woman or even any person can be accountable to themselves (and maybe God, directly) and themselves alone is difficult to comprehend.

Not at all.  I think the "difficult to comprehend" part is the "abortion on demand, period" rhetoric.

The personhood of the child matters.  It deserves some attention and consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I'm sort of confused.  I had not realized that Utah was one of the states that allowed for elective "pre-viability" abortions.  But it's right there in the statute (Utah Code sec. 76-7-302) : 

"An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician ... {and} only under the following circumstances ... the unborn child is not viable {meaning that the unborn child has not yet 'reached a stage of fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty'}."

However, this statute seems to conflict with the "trigger" statute, Utah Code sec. 76-7a-201:

If I am reading this right, a "pre-viable" abortion is allowed under Utah Code sec. 76-7-302(3)(a), but is not allowed under Utah Code sec. 76-7a-201.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

-Smac

You are correct. The trigger law removes the viability rule and supersedes the previous statute. It appears that I overlooked that.

 

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. Again, using the [previous] UT statute as the backdrop for discussion here, if she both (1) consented to engage in sex to begin with and then (2) consented to carry the child to the point of viability, then she consented to the creation of that person (who now has rights) being inside her. 

At this point, she still has the choice to end that person's life; she just isn't able to do do without consequences. 

That isn't treating the woman as less than a human. It's holding her accountable for her own freely chosen actions, just as we do with every other citizen.

 

Do you happen to have any data on what the mean review time happens to be?

 

Fairly well - though I suspect you'll disagree.

 

In this scenario, nobody forced her to delay her decision to terminate until the third trimester. Circumstances changed, but circumstances can change at any point. She would be in the same situation if her husband suffered a heart attack and died in the delivery room. At that point, however, it's too late to change your mind about having a baby. You don't have to keep the child, of course, but you don't get to terminate the child's life either.

 

Why do you assume a person must be forcing her? Circumstances can force.

[Amulek]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why do you assume a person must be forcing her? Circumstances can force.

I believe that any such circumstances would have to be quite severe in order to legally (or morally) justify the taking of another human life.

 

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Instead of that, imagine a world where abortions were accessible, safe, but rarely used. Where instead of trying to force women, society helps them or removes obstacles that prevent them from having safe pregnancies and outcomes.

I could imagine that.  That has been a fantasy in the US since 1973.   Over 600,000 abortions done each year in the US.  So what we have had so far is legal abortion but far from rarely used.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Quote

Instead of that, imagine a world where abortions were accessible, safe, but rarely used. Where instead of trying to force women, society helps them or removes obstacles that prevent them from having safe pregnancies and outcomes.

I could imagine that.  That has been a fantasy in the US since 1973.   Over 600,000 abortions done each year in the US.  So what we have had so far is legal abortion but far from rarely used.  

I am giving Meadowchik the benefit of the doubt regarding this.  While she may personally subscribe to the "safe, legal and rare" approach to abortion, I think it has faded.  A lot.

This article (from 2019) does a very good job of tracing the diminution of the "safe, legal, and rare" concept.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Although I suspect you and I agree as to the ultimate conclusions to be reached relative to elective abortions, I think the foregoing does not sufficiently take into account the legitimate points being made by the "pro choice" side.  Rights of privacy, bodily autonomy and self-determination are important considerations.  Physical/mental/emotional health implications and risks to the mother are important considerations.  Sociological and financial implications are important.  

To be sure, there are some on the "pro choice" side who take a "no big deal" approach.  Who seem to give little or no thought or consideration or weight to the personhood of the unborn child.  But such abject apathy is not, I think, fairly attributed to the entirety of the "other side" of the debate. 

 

Abortion is not an issue that has rattle my cage in my life. It never been a voting issue for me.  What does bother me that some of the most public pro choice people are really anti choice.  Those liberals on the left who support abortion want to force people into universal government health care.  They want to tell us what guns we can have.  They want to force us into EV cars.  They want to ban this and that.  So I a can support legal abortion.  Just let us have the right to make choices for things that are important to us.  If I want an AR-15, stop trying to take my choice away.  Leave us alone just as they want pregnant women want to be left alone. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Abortion is not an issue that has rattle my cage in my life. It never been a voting issue for me. 

It's an important issue for me, but generally not a dispositive one.

I'm reminded of this quote (often erroneously attributed to Gandhi, but which appears to have come from Hubert Humphrey) :

Quote

In his Oct. 27 letter, “Prop. 1 helps homeless kids,” Denny Scott quoted Gandhi as saying: “The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.” A related quote, “The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member,” is also attributed to Gandhi.

According to quotation sleuth Ralph Keyes (Author of “The Quote Verifier”), Gandhi never said or wrote these words. Another is often cited by animal-rights organizations as part of a speech by Gandhi in 1931: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated. I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.” According to Keyes, the words can’t be found in that speech.

At the Hubert Humphrey Building dedication, Nov. 1, 1977, in Washington, D.C., former vice president Humphrey spoke about the treatment of the weakest members of society as a reflection of a government: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

Whether the object is a "government" or a "nation" or a "civilization" or a "society," the basic sentiment remains the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I could imagine that.  That has been a fantasy in the US since 1973.   Over 600,000 abortions done each year in the US.  So what we have had so far is legal abortion but far from rarely used.  

Have we had in place the social support systems that Meadowchik is saying is needed in order for women not to perceive the need for an abortion?  Having abortion legal is a small part of that goal. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

My guess is a combo of major support and some regulation would be the most useful approach to lowering abortions. I base this in part on both Norway and Finland being in the top three countries for mothers, but Finland’s abortion rate is lower than Norway’s. (I have seen varying rates for Norway from around 10-14 per 1000).

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/19010-finland-has-the-lowest-abortion-rate-among-nordic-countries.html

Quote

Recent figures from the Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare (THL) have revealed that Finland has the lowest rate of induced abortions among Nordic countries. 

It also has the strictest abortion laws, being the only Nordic country where women need to acquire the signature of at least one doctor (in some cases two) to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. 

If the pregnancy has proceeded past 13 weeks, special permission from the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira) must be obtained.

In 2019, Finland reported 7.7 induced abortions per every thousand women (aged 15–49). The corresponding figure in Sweden, which has the highest number of abortions among Nordic countries, was 16.4 per every thousand women

https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2021/06/fra-redaktoren/what-abortion-figures-say

https://www.insider.com/best-countries-for-mothers-maternity-leave-2019-4?amp

Edited July 5, 2022 by Calm

[SkyRock]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have we had in place the social support systems that Meadowchik is saying is needed in order for women not to perceive the need for an abortion?  Having abortion legal is a small part of that goal. 

I suspect it wouldn't matter to her.   It is just a red herring.  She opposes any restrictions on the a woman's ability to end a pregnancy, even post viability. 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

I suspect it wouldn't matter to her.   It is just a red herring.  She opposes any restrictions on the a woman's ability to end a pregnancy, even post viability. 

How about you let her speak for herself?

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

I suspect it wouldn't matter to her.   It is just a red herring.  She opposes any restrictions on the a woman's ability to end a pregnancy, even post viability. 

I highly doubt that. She has been consistent with pushing social programs to drop abortion rates as long as I can remember.

[SkyRock]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I highly doubt that. She has been consistent with pushing social programs to drop abortion rates as long as I can remember.

And she has been consistent that there should be no limits at all on abortion. 

[SkyRock]

35 minutes ago, ttribe said:

How about you let her speak for herself?

She has, many times.   She has been very very clear.