Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[historia]

More precisely: Should the current Supreme Court precedent on abortion -- first established by Roe v. Wade, but later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- be overturned?

My question here is not so much whether abortion should be legal or not, since overturning Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal, with several states having laws that explicitly allow for abortions.

[historia]

A fetus does not have the same value as a human baby. Therefore a fetus should not be a concidered a baby, much less a person.

Okay, so I assume then you support keeping abortion legal?

If so, would you say the best way to achieve that is: (a) through a controversial court ruling that many legal scholars consider tenuous, or (b) passing it into law?

If you (generic you) believe in a god, that god is responsible for terminating more than half of successful fertilizations.
Guess what? No uproar.
Now concider that these god concepts actually terminated half of born babies.
We would have an uproar.
Again... value.

Humans at varying stages of their lives die of natural causes. That doesn't prevent governments from enacting laws to prevent homicide.

[Miles]

In country with such a plurality of opinions and special interests I think it wise to defer to the the one solo arbiter of "wisdom" it has, the Supreme Court Of The United States, as imperfect as it may be.

. . .

Unless you have a better idea.

Right now, there are 66 countries where abortion is, to varying degrees, legal. In the vast majority of those, they made abortion legal simply by passing a law through the normal legislative process. In a few, like Ireland, they held a referendum to decide.

From my point of view, either of those approaches is better.

In which case here in the USA Roe v. Wade would prevail. 2019 graphic.

.................................

But here's the overarching point I'm making, in case you've missed it: The Supreme Court is not supposed to be deciding when life begins. It's not the arbiter of medical or philosophical questions. It's supposed to decide whether laws are constitutional or not.

This is why even some legal scholars who want abortion to remain legal -- such as Laurence Tribe, Benjamin Wittes, and Alan Dershowitz -- believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. You can be "pro choice" while still recognizing that Roe rests on shaky legal reasoning.

You have a good point here in that the SCOTUS is not granted the right to arbitrate medical or philosophical questions, no more so than the Texas legislature is the arbiter of medical or philosophical questions---it has no more medical or philosophical training than does the court. Then why does it get to decide that the exact moment wherein a human sperm makes full contact with an egg cell should be thee defining moment pregnancy begins? It shouldn't. So, where does the buck stop?

So, in a democracy, the buck stops with the People.

Actually, we're a republic, not a true democracy; some call it a "democratic republic." The difference being:

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives..."

Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law notes that the United States exemplifies the varied nature of a constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives. As with many large systems, US governance is incompletely described by any single term. It also employs the concept, for instance, of a constitutional democracy in which a court system is involved in matters of jurisprudence.
Source: Wikipedia

This may be splitting hairs here, but I believe it's necessary to not assume our laws are made by popular vote. Making laws is the job of our legislatures.

We decide the laws of our country. And the way we do that (broadly speaking) is to debate and convince our fellow citizens of the virtue of a particular idea, and then pass that idea into law, either directly through a referendum or indirectly through our elected representatives.

Contrary to your assertion above, I do think that the Legislature has broad authority to decide medical and ethical questions, at least as far as those touch on the law. If you don't like a particular law, advocate that it be removed. Or vote for new representatives who are committed to overturning that law. Or, in a federal system like the United States, move to another state whose laws are more inline with your values.

Which in this case would appear to strongly uphold Roe v. Wade

The problem with investing the Supreme Court with making these decisions is three-fold:

(1) As already mentioned above, this is not its intended role,

It fulfilled its intended role by considering the legality of a law. A Texas law. And the consequence in so doing happened to legalize some abortions. Had Texas not passed its law the SCOTUS would never have gotten involved.

(2) it forces all states to follow the same laws, when diversity may be preferable,

And that's always been the compulsory consequence of U. S. Supreme Court rulings. They apply to the whole country and everyone in it.

(3) Supreme Court justices are not elected, but rather serve lifetime appointments.

Yup. Sometimes a good thing (if the majority thinks like I do) and sometimes a bad thing (if the majority doesn't think like I do). And if elected, justices would still be at the whim of the prevailing mind set at the time---as it stands, judges are nominated and confirmed by how closely they agree with the prevailing political party. What the court needs is an autonomy that protects it from people rising up against its rulings and ousting judges whose votes it didn't like. It needs to be permanently insulated from all outside forces. An entity unto itself.

The People have very little recourse to overturn laws they don't approve of if the Supreme Court is essentially making laws, compared to the Legislature, where elections give the People greater control.

Exactly! The people not being schooled in law simply don't have the wherewithal to adequately consider and judge issues fairly. Which is why commoners like you and I may sit as jurists, but never on the bench.


.

[Purple Knight]

Exactly! The people not being schooled in law simply don't have the wherewithal to adequately consider and judge issues fairly.

This is unfortunately true. However, that doesn't change the fact that I would prefer to live in a society where the People have more control over the laws, and the legislature, less.

Something Historia touched on is States' Rights, and let us suppose we had two states, Calibraska and Georgetucky, the former in which the legislature stood firm against populist laws, preventing morally wrong laws even if 99% of the People wanted them, whereas in Georgetucky, the People simply have more control and they get their way and they get their immoral law.

Suppose those 99% that didn't like that law flood out of Calibraska and into Georgetucky? Where exactly is the wrong if both states have right of exit?

Let us even suppose the law is some horrid thing like legalised murder. Murder is aggression and wrong. That is an objective fact. That is the sort of objective fact that the legislature stands for, preventing the immoral majority from getting their way.

But who exactly is wronged if everyone murdered chose voluntarily to live under the legal murder statute? Suppose for the sake of argument that any Georgetuckians who don't like the immoral law are ferried free of charge to Calibraska.

[Miles]

Exactly! The people not being schooled in law simply don't have the wherewithal to adequately consider and judge issues fairly.

This is unfortunately true. However, that doesn't change the fact that I would prefer to live in a society where the People have more control over the laws, and the legislature, less.

Considering that half the population has an IQ below 100 I would not. I prefer elected representatives who, for the most part, appear to be brighter than that and are hopefully college educated. In fact, as a side issue, I support the idea of professional jurists. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of my peers, many of whom weren't bright enough to get out of jury duty. I would want bright, educated jurists who could see past lawyer trickery, and reach the fairest conclusion possible.

Something Historia touched on is States' Rights, and let us suppose we had two states, Calibraska and Georgetucky, the former in which the legislature stood firm against populist laws, preventing morally wrong laws even if 99% of the People wanted them, whereas in Georgetucky, the People simply have more control and they get their way and they get their immoral law.

Suppose those 99% that didn't like that law flood out of Calibraska and into Georgetucky? Where exactly is the wrong if both states have right of exit?
Let us even suppose the law is some horrid thing like legalised murder. Murder is aggression and wrong. That is an objective fact. That is the sort of objective fact that the legislature stands for, preventing the immoral majority from getting their way.

But who exactly is wronged if everyone murdered chose voluntarily to live under the legal murder statute? Suppose for the sake of argument that any Georgetuckians who don't like the immoral law are ferried free of charge to Calibraska.

Because not everyone in such a state would have a say in having to live there; the children, who would be just as vulnerable to being murdered as their murder approving parents.


.

[Purple Knight]

Considering that half the population has an IQ below 100 I would not. I prefer elected representatives who, for the most part, appear to be brighter than that and are hopefully college educated. In fact, as a side issue, I support the idea of professional jurists. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of my peers, many of whom weren't bright enough to get out of jury duty. I would want bright, educated jurists who could see past lawyer trickery, and reach the fairest conclusion possible.

And I support your right to be tried by professionals. However, if I want idiots, that doesn't hurt you, ignoring for the moment the messy issue of me having shot you in the right thigh and potentially having a bright lawyer capable of swindling the idiots, which is of course why I want them.

But taking aside the matter of me gaining some advantage by it, if I want idiots, what's the problem? I see none. I could really be guilty and hope they don't see that, but being dumb, they're as likely to declare me guilty because they don't like my face and decided to go with their collective gut. If you want professionals, again, I don't see a problem.

Generally, unless you're asking for people who know you, I support anyone's right to specify who the peers are that they want trying them. If a doctor is on trial and he wants other doctors, I see no reason to deny him that, and if the issue in question is partly medical, granting his request can only lead to a more informed decision. If a Black person is on trial and they want other Black people, again, why deny him?

Because not everyone in such a state would have a say in having to live there; the children, who would be just as vulnerable to being murdered as their murder approving parents.

That's a good point. So suppose either that in Georgetucky, the legal murder excludes children, or that there is another law acknowledging that children should not be exposed to legal murder and thus preventing Georgetuckians from having children at all. Is there a wrong then?

Now, you could say that aspiring Georgetuckians all voted for the law, or flooded into the state, thinking in typical Pollyanna complex fashion that he himself would be the murderer and some other fool would be the one getting murdered. Even if not all, but some of them deceived themselves in this way, and then, when finding himself on his back, a knife to his throat, he cries that murder is wrong after all, you could argue that if rights are fundamental, this fellow has now simply reasserted his right, and regardless of what the law is, the act violates rights and is thus wrong. You could.

[Miles]

Considering that half the population has an IQ below 100 I would not. I prefer elected representatives who, for the most part, appear to be brighter than that and are hopefully college educated. In fact, as a side issue, I support the idea of professional jurists. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of my peers, many of whom weren't bright enough to get out of jury duty. I would want bright, educated jurists who could see past lawyer trickery, and reach the fairest conclusion possible.

And I support your right to be tried by professionals. However, if I want idiots, that doesn't hurt you, ignoring for the moment the messy issue of me having shot you in the right thigh and potentially having a bright lawyer capable of swindling the idiots, which is of course why I want them.

But taking aside the matter of me gaining some advantage by it, if I want idiots, what's the problem? I see none.

What if it was your teenage daughter on trial for vehicular manslaughter, which can put her away for up to 99 years (Alaska)?


.

[Purple Knight]

Considering that half the population has an IQ below 100 I would not. I prefer elected representatives who, for the most part, appear to be brighter than that and are hopefully college educated. In fact, as a side issue, I support the idea of professional jurists. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of my peers, many of whom weren't bright enough to get out of jury duty. I would want bright, educated jurists who could see past lawyer trickery, and reach the fairest conclusion possible.

And I support your right to be tried by professionals. However, if I want idiots, that doesn't hurt you, ignoring for the moment the messy issue of me having shot you in the right thigh and potentially having a bright lawyer capable of swindling the idiots, which is of course why I want them.

But taking aside the matter of me gaining some advantage by it, if I want idiots, what's the problem? I see none.

What if it was your teenage daughter on trial for vehicular manslaughter, which can put her away for up to 99 years (Alaska)?


.

I also support her right to be tried by whatever group of peers she deems worthy.

The jury selection process already does something similar; it's just messier.

As far as the topic though, I meant to ask you before if, when you said that educated people are more likely to make fair laws, you mean that for all possible laws, there are fair ones and unfair ones, or if, for some things, there is no objectively fair but only personal preference.

[Bradskii]

Or should it be made by the People and their representatives through the normal legislative process?

By the people - directly. Via a referendum.

[Miles]

Considering that half the population has an IQ below 100 I would not. I prefer elected representatives who, for the most part, appear to be brighter than that and are hopefully college educated. In fact, as a side issue, I support the idea of professional jurists. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of my peers, many of whom weren't bright enough to get out of jury duty. I would want bright, educated jurists who could see past lawyer trickery, and reach the fairest conclusion possible.

And I support your right to be tried by professionals. However, if I want idiots, that doesn't hurt you, ignoring for the moment the messy issue of me having shot you in the right thigh and potentially having a bright lawyer capable of swindling the idiots, which is of course why I want them.

But taking aside the matter of me gaining some advantage by it, if I want idiots, what's the problem? I see none.

What if it was your teenage daughter on trial for vehicular manslaughter, which can put her away for up to 99 years (Alaska)?


.

I also support her right to be tried by whatever group of peers she deems worthy.

Then let's hope you have one mature and wise teenage daughter.

As far as the topic though, I meant to ask you before if, when you said that educated people are more likely to make fair laws, you mean that for all possible laws, there are fair ones and unfair ones, or if, for some things, there is no objectively fair but only personal preference.

Of course there are fair and unfair laws. Laws that block racial discrimination are fair. Laws that promote racial discrimination are unfair. And there's a better chance that fair laws will come from an educated mind than an uneducated one.


.

[Clownboat]

Okay, so I assume then you support keeping abortion legal?

I hate the idea of an abortion. I also hate the idea that one of my daughters could not abort an unwanted fetus if they ever so chose to.

If so, would you say the best way to achieve that is: (a) through a controversial court ruling that many legal scholars consider tenuous, or (b) passing it into law?

Why should courts be involved with what a women can do to her own body in the first place? Would that not be like passing a law that allows women to get tattoes? Should this be necessary?
If there is a demand, there will be supply.

Humans at varying stages of their lives die of natural causes. That doesn't prevent governments from enacting laws to prevent homicide.

I'm sure you have heard this phrase: "Your rights stop where my nose begins."
If a women wanted to abort an unwanted fetus, our noses will be uneffected. (Besides for society not needing to support these unwanted fetuses. I'm talking about a negative effect of course.)
Point to the nose of the unborn and then we will need to discuss the value differences to show why one nose takes precedence over another.

What if we followed this to its logical conclusion...
Considering what is best for society... what is the preferred amount of unwanted fetuses that we should add to the human population per year?

- In 2018, unmarried women accounted for 85% of all abortions (CDC).
Would society improve if we forced these unmarried women to attempt to conceive these unwanted fetuses?
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_a ... tatistics/

Why so much focus on saving unwanted fetuses in the first place? (By some people).
What about all the couples that want a child, but can't due to how often their pregnancies abort naturally. Should our focus not be on the wanted fetuses and not the saving of the unwanted ones?

Consider this:
Bob and Mary are ready to start a family, but they are unable to conceive. - That's to bad, but that's life.
Single mother Margarette who is not financialy stable and doesn't want to attempt to carry the fetus to term. - Shame on you, you murderer.

Are we not missing the forest for the trees? Let's focus on saving the wanted vegitation, not the unwanted vegitation.