Protecting the Constitution

[tower912]

I had always been pro-choice but not willing to fight for it.   I come down very close to CTWarrior on this issue.

The baby in the picture (my avatar, I guess?) is now 15.    We found out my wife was pregnant for him three weeks short of my 40th birthday, six weeks shy of my wife's 37th birthday.    My wife has many health issues.   She had already miscarried twice.  Our first trip to the OB-Gyn, I was discreetly pulled aside and told to prepare myself for the possibility of terminating the pregnancy to protect my wife.   It was a difficult pregnancy, a premature birth, and a couple of days in NICU.    Obviously, she never reached the point where the decision had to be made.   But we could see it off in the distance a couple of times.

I cannot in good conscience take away a right that I had to claim for myself.

[CTWarrior]

I think you have a very reasonable take overall, but to suggest there's no argument here is plainly wrong. There's a ton of argument here, and it's one of the reason we (as a country) have such conflicting views over abortion.
Even historically speaking, there's no  tradition of considering a fetus a human life. After all, we don't we hold funerals for miscarriages, for example. Why? We don't impose child support from the date of conception. Why?
And, of course, many honestly believe that until a fetus is viable, it's not a human life.
I think reasonable people can disagree in good faith here, but to claim there's no dispute one way or the other is not true.

https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/

I say there is no argument at all that abortion ends a human life because what argument is there?  Fetuses that are not aborted become people.  That is not to say that fetuses are people, but that they will become people that vast vast majority of the time.  So ending the life of a fetus ends the life of what would have been a person.  Don't see how there is an argument there.

[CTWarrior]

If abortion is "reprehensible," why should there be any exceptions for rape or incest? Why are you willing to make exceptions for women with financial issues? How are you going to "prove" had these issues and isn't someone who just doesn't want a baby?

This is why I agree with the original decision. Just leave it up to the mother during the first trimester. After that, the only exception is if the mother's life is at risk - same legal theory as self-defense.

And I think that is what most Americans believe on this issue.

You make a good point above.  I don't have a good answer for you other than in my gut and in my heart that is what I think is right.  I agree with everything else you say.

[Jockey]

It all boils down to what you consider the value of a life or of a potential life.  I find the vitriol on both sides to be unwarranted.  I believe in the sanctity of life, and find the very idea of abortion to be reprehensible.  Scientists have an opinion about when life is viable, but there is no argument that with abortion you are terminating a human life, because there would be a human life if you did not have an abortion.

You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.

[Skatastrophy]

You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.

Masturbation should be illegal, because all of those socks under ZFB's bed could have become people.

[Uncle Rico]

Masturbation should be illegal, because all of those socks under ZFB's bed could have become people.

Jesus watches you masterbate.  He’s sort of creepy that way

[CTWarrior]

You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.

Well, I didn't mean to.  An aborted fetus is going to be a human being unless something interrupts its natural progress.  Prior to conception, that is not the case (at least the barriers are much more significant since most sexual encounters do not result in pregnancy).  At any rate, since the result of my thought process was to compromise and allow first trimester abortions, then I think it is safe to assume contraception comes well before that.  I suppose you can nitpick my logic, and I'm OK with that.

[Pakuni]

I say there is no argument at all that abortion ends a human life because what argument is there?  Fetuses that are not aborted become people.  That is not to say that fetuses are people, but that they will become people that vast vast majority of the time.  So ending the life of a fetus ends the life of what would have been a person.  Don't see how there is an argument there.

You seem to be arguing that something IS what it will become. That's an interesting theory, but also one that we plainly reject in nearly any other context. Nobody believes a caterpillar is actually a butterfly, or a tadpole is really a frog, or that the scrambled eggs you had for breakfast was really a piece of chicken.
That theory presents all sorts of interesting questions, also, when it comes to age-related crime and restrictions. Is a child an adult since that child will become an adult? Yeah, that's an extreme, but it's also the logic at work here when you claim that something actually is what it one day will become.
And the fact that we can have this debate seems to be proof that there is indeed an argument to be had.

.

[CTWarrior]

You seem to be arguing that something IS what it will become. That's an interesting theory, but also one that we plainly reject in nearly any other context. Nobody believes a caterpillar is actually butterfly, or a tadpole is really a frog, or that the scrambled eggs you had for breakfast was really a piece of chicken.
That theory presents all sorts of interesting questions, also, when it comes to age-related crime and restrictions. Is a child an adult since that child will become an adult? Yeah, that's an extreme, but it's also the logic at work here.
And the fact that we can have this debate seems to be proof that there is indeed an argument to be had.

.

Again, I do not think a fetus is a person, but it will definitely become one unless something is done to stop it.  It is not a theory, it is fact, fetuses allowed to progress become human beings.  Unless a woman has given birth to a table or something and I haven't heard about it.  So I don't see how you can make a reasonable argument that killing a fetus does not prevent/end a human life.  No one thinks a baby boy is a man, but if you kill a baby boy you necessarily end the life of a man.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Again, I do not think a fetus is a person, but it will definitely become one unless something is done to stop it.  It is not a theory, it is fact, fetuses allowed to progress become human beings.  Unless a woman has given birth to a table or something and I haven't heard about it.  So I don't see how you can make a reasonable argument that killing a fetus does not prevent/end a human life.  No one thinks a baby boy is a man, but if you kill a baby boy you necessarily end the life of a man.

If a fetus is not a person, then the argument that life begins at conception is false right?  At what point does the state have a compelling interest to protect something that is not a person?

[Pakuni]

Again, I do not think a fetus is a person, but it will definitely become one unless something is done to stop it.  It is not a theory, it is fact, fetuses allowed to progress become human beings.  Unless a woman has given birth to a table or something and I haven't heard about it.  So I don't see how you can make a reasonable argument that killing a fetus does not prevent/end a human life.  No one thinks a baby boy is a man, but if you kill a baby boy you necessarily end the life of a man.

You've shifted arguments here. You started with "abortion terminates a human life" and have slid to "abortion prevents a human life."
Pretty significant difference, no?
I think we can all agree that a fetus is a POTENTIAL human life. The debate here when it goes from potential to actual. You continue to suggest that there's no argument about that. I disagree.

[forgetful]

Well, I didn't mean to.  An aborted fetus is going to be a human being unless something interrupts its natural progress.  Prior to inception, that is not the case (at least the barriers are much more significant since most sexual encounters do not result in pregnancy).  At any rate, since the result of my thought process was to compromise and allow first trimester abortions, then I think it is safe to assume contraception comes well before that.  I suppose you can nitpick my logic, and I'm OK with that.

The problem is the biblical basis that is used to support outlawing abortion is usually something like Psalms 139:13,

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."

This is used to support the idea that life begins at conception.

But others point to Jeremiah 1:5,

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."

That says that life begins before conception, and contraception, is wrong. So you can expect the religious right to target other long standing laws too.

Regarding abortion, I've always been personally against it. But 100% recognize that my personal stance should not take away the rights of others. So I'm against the decision to overturn Roe.

Now, your original stance was well written, the problem is that Roe already was the compromise you are looking for. It is now gone, and some states are outlawing all forms of abortion. We already had a reasonable common sense law supported by science and medicine, that balanced the rights of an unborn fetus (whatever those rights are), and the rights of women.

We now have a situation in some states, where religious zealots, and politicians are stopping women from getting medical care that their physicians think is necessary.

[NCMUFan]

You seem to have made the argument for those who now want to go after contraception.

Sounds similar to the same paranoia as those not wanting assault weapons banned because next will be personal protection firearms.

[YaBlueIt]

Going through circles ad nauseum about "when does life begin", "is a fetus a human being", "when in a pregnancy do we draw the line", etc. is pointless because those are questions that people will never fully agree on because these definitions rely on personal beliefs, philosophy, or religion. Getting caught up in that debate is a trap.

The question is who should get to make those decisions about abortion? A patient and her doctor, or the government?

Anything else is missing the point.

[Pakuni]

Sounds similar to the same paranoia as those not wanting assault weapons banned because next will be personal protection firearms.

Yeah, it's not like a Supreme Court justice has literally suggested that the right to contraception should be reconsidered.
Oh, wait ...

[NCMUFan]

Yeah, it's not like a Supreme Court justice has literally suggested that the right to contraception should be reconsidered.
Oh, wait ...

Hasn't the Supreme addressed after conception has occurred?  So the issue of contraception has left the building.

[tower912]

So, ignore the words of Justice Thomas?

[Skatastrophy]

Hasn't the Supreme addressed after conception has occurred?  So the issue of contraception has left the building.

Maybe you missed Thomas' comments in the Roe v Wade decision, but he wrote that they “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Those are decisions that codified rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. He's a religious extremist.

[jficke13]

Hasn't the Supreme addressed after conception has occurred?  So the issue of contraception has left the building.

I urge people to be skeptical about how limited the decision is and to read Thomas' concurrence as more possible than you might think.

One thing that is clear in the wake of this decision is that people on the left/the Democratic party as a operation simply did not entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court would ever overturn Roe and Casey. They seem to have had fundraising emails drafted, but not a single operable tactic ready to go. But, more particularly, they had a long time to be proactive and do something more to advance their stated goals of ensuring abortion access than to merely presume the Roe/Casey wall would never fall. They elected not to do any of those things, and well, here we are.

I say all that because I think you would be engaging in the exact kind of passive behavior if you read Dodds and concluded that "well that Thomas is sure out on his own island, isn't he. Good thing nobody else would overturn Obgerfell, Griswold, and Lawrence" then you're falling into the exact same trap.

Force me to handicap the likelihood of those three being overturned, and I'd say less than a coinflip. However, I'd put the likelihood of their drawing a challege to be 100%, and I'm not sure it's wise to simply wishcast that the SCOTUS as currently assembled couldn't possibly strike down something that is as tenuous as unenumerated rights reliant on substantive due process precedent.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.

[Pakuni]

Maybe you missed Thomas' comments in the Roe v Wade decision, but he wrote that they “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Those are decisions that codified rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. He's a religious extremist.

Weird that he left out Loving. Can't imagine why.

[rocket surgeon]

   " a right was taken away"


  what right was taken away?

you are absolutely correct that "just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away."

  we have been saying that for years about things people don't hold value in see it taken away from another and could care less...until it happens to them...then holy hell breaks out.  now where have we seen that occur?

  all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

   " a right was taken away"


  what right was taken away?

you are absolutely correct that "just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away."

  we have been saying that for years about things people don't hold value in see it taken away from another and could care less...until it happens to them...then holy hell breaks out.  now where have we seen that occur?

  all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways

Are you seriously this dense?  A woman's Constitutional right to chose to have an abortion.

[4everwarriors]

I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.

More worried that elected officials are defiantly disregarding a Supreme Court ruling. This country is so fooked up and knocking on the door of the 3rd world. Equally amazed that Mayor Light-in-the-Loafers advocates fookin' Clarence Thomas, hey?

[Jockey]

Maybe you missed Thomas' comments in the Roe v Wade decision, but he wrote that they “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Those are decisions that codified rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. He's a religious extremist.

Interesting that he didn’t include ‘Loving’ in his rantings.

Sorry, Pakuni - just saw your post