Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

[Diogenes]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned today.
This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court. My guess is, it will do both and will lead to women traveling from their homes in the South and much of the heartland of the United States to States that protect the 'right' for 50 years.

The 'abortion pill' will be banned in many States and the 'pro-choice' advocates will try to get the pill into those States where it will be a felony to possess it. I can envision armed militias at borders and around airports.
When the 18th Amendment prohibited Alcohol in 1919 it produced a new, illegal industry and related violence that lead to the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, repealing that Amendment.

[RightReason]

RightReason:

I can imagine just that.

Benchwarmer:

Well, that's sad, but you are free to your own feelings.

I can imagine carrying a baby even if the baby was a result of rape because I have listened to the testimony of many beautiful and courageous women who did just that and because I know that it would be completely horrific to punish the baby for the crimes of his/her father.


What the victims think


Back in 1979, in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn, MPH, MS, found that 75–85% of victims did not abort their children. Here's what the study revealed:


Pregnant rape victims in the study felt that abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children's bodies.


•They reported a belief that their child's life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. The child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act, but perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose.


•After their own victimization, the thought of victimizing their innocent child through abortion was repulsive to them.


•Victims reported a sense that getting through the pregnancy meant conquering the rape. While the perpetrator was selfish, she can be generous. While he was destructive, she can be nurturing.


In a smaller Elliot Institute study published in 2000, outcomes reflected similar viewpoints:


•Nearly 80 percent of the women who aborted their children after rape reported that abortion was the wrong solution, that it only increased their trauma.


•None of the women who gave birth to a child conceived in rape expressed regret or wished they had aborted instead.


https://personhood.org/2020/02/12/abort ... ompassion/

Also, I think it important to point out whenever the example of rape is brought up is that rape due to abortion makes up less than 1% of all abortions. 99% of abortions are elective for convenience reasons.

The morning after pill stops ovulation, it does not terminate a pregnancy.

Yes, that is the semantics touted by the pro aborts, but not the full story . . .

those who say that the "morning-after pill" is not abortifacient but prevents implantation do not realize that they are affirming its abortifacient nature when they say that it prevents implantation: since this action can only take place after fertilization and works by preventing the continued development of the embryo, it can only be abortifacient.


https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... -pill-2732

However, even if the victim gets pregnant, the rights of the zygote should not supersede that of the mother to be.

A zygote is a fertilized ovum. Embryology textbooks define zygotes as the beginning of life. Please pick up a biology book. If you want to say that one life is inferior or less than someone else’s life than own that, but keep in mind the same thing has been tried throughout history to dehumanize one group over another.

Now you're just building strawmen to knock over. Who said anything about toddlers?

It’s the same logical rational. If a woman gets pregnant but already has another child and says she has to have an abortion because she can’t afford another child, why not kill the 2 year old if it is a matter of finances? Sounds pretty gross, right? Why not be equally grossed out at killing the most vulnerable and weak among us? Why decide just because someone does not yet have a voice and cannot yet speak for him/herself, he/she can be discarded? This is preying on the weak. Again, we were all a member of the unborn group at one time.

There are no women in wombs. A woman is an adult female human being.

More females are killed via abortion than males. More African Americans are as well. Abortion is sexist and racist. Planned Parenthood was founded to control “the negro population”. Abortion is bad for babies and mothers. The majority of pro lifers are women, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

RightReason wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:29 pmAlso, one could argue studies show most women regret their abortion and say they felt pressured or forced to have an abortion, when they actually wanted to keep their baby.
Benchwarmer: It might help your case if you actually cited some of these. Or is this just more pulling stuff out of thin air?

A British survey in 2006 found that 82% of respondents said they deeply regretted their abortions


Numerous studies also link abortions to an increased risk of mental health problems, including a 2009 study from the University of Otago in New Zealand.


Other studies indicate that post-abortive women are at a higher risk of suicide. One study published in the British Medical Journal in 2013 found that women who had abortions were seven times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth.


Lead author Professor David Fergusson, who described himself as a pro-choice atheist, also led the research team in a 2008 study that concluded that women who continued an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy did not experience a significant increase in mental health problems. Further, having an abortion did not reduce their mental health risks.


A 2011 study in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that 10% of mental health problems among women, including 35% of suicidal behaviors, may be attributable to abortion


The increased risk of suicide following abortion has been recognized in Australia as well.

https://www.lifenews.com/2020/07/15/psy ... -problems/

Well, that's a lot of straw. How does providing access to legal abortion tell women they can't handle a baby? Just wow.

Seriously? Who do you think is pushing for these abortions?

Most Women Who Had Abortions Were Pressured Into It

73.8% of women who had an abortion felt pressure to do so. And that 58.3% got an abortion to make someone else happy, not themselves. And that 30% were afraid that they would lose their partner if they didn’t.

the study also found that two-thirds of the women (66%) knew in their hearts that abortion was wrong.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith ... d-into-it/


Many American Women Have Felt Pressured into Abortions, Study Finds
https://www.pop.org/many-american-women ... udy-finds/

‘You either get out or get an abortion’: Women pressured into abortions tell their stories

https://www.liveaction.org/news/get-out ... pressured/

It's actually kind of the opposite. By making it illegal, you are telling women they have to handle having a baby (whether they are able or not), have to afford it (whether the can or not), juggle their career (whether they can/want to or not). Sounds like you are the one supporting forcing the issue.

The facts don’t support your opinion:

Lead author Professor David Fergusson, who described himself as a pro-choice atheist, also led the research team in a 2008 study that concluded that women who continued an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy did not experience a significant increase in mental health problems. Further, having an abortion did not reduce their mental health risks.

https://www.lifenews.com/2020/07/15/psy ... -problems/

Diogenes:

Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of women... said it was the right decision for them.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/41642 ... sion-study

This study has been shown to be flawed by methodological problems.

Study Claiming Women Don’t Regret Abortions Deeply Flawed and Deceptive

https://afterabortion.org/study-claimin ... he-debate/


only 38% of the women asked to participate in the study actually did, and the women who dropped out or did not participate may have been the ones who felt more negatively about their abortions.

And again, msm is silent on reports like these that don’t support their narrative:

Study: Almost 75% of American women who had abortions were pressured
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study ... pressured/


Pro-abortion activists have long claimed that abortion empowers women to make decisions about their fertility. But the findings of Professor Coleman’s study indicate that rather than feeling “empowered” by their decision to have an abortion, they were in fact pressured into a decision that was not in line with their values and wants. Worse still, the consequences of their abortions have been detrimental to their psychological and emotional health and well-being.

The findings suggest that coercive treatment of women by pressuring them to choose abortion is widespread and deeply ingrained in many communities across the country.


https://www.pop.org/many-american-women ... udy-finds/

[otseng]

[Replying to RightReason in post #21]

Moderator Comment

Per the OP, "The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court."

For debates on abortion, please create a separate thread.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Miles in post #11]

What is it about Trump that's so attractive?

Precisely this ^. That he got it done – he got Supreme Court justices in that recognized the faulty reasoning behind Roe V. Wade and understand abortion for what it is – the greatest human rights violation we face today.

Most people I know who voted for Trump do not like Trump as a person. Just hearing him speak I cringe. In politics, it almost always comes down to the lesser of two evils. I knew a vote for Trump would mean more of the programs, policies, and legislation that are more in line with my values and what I think would be better for our country would more likely occur under Trump then Clinton or Biden and so far, I’d say that gamble has paid out.

This is truly a day to celebrate.

The opposition to Roe v Wade is what I term "single issue fanaticism". The obsession with some single issue dominates one's political thinking and decision making. Trump (by pretending to care about these obscure issues) is able to lead the sheep by their noses, they will do his bidding, defend his name, look away as he lies and insults his way to the bank so long as he supports their pet fanaticism be it abortion, guns, immigration, racism, nationalism, white supremacy...

[Inquirer]

Curiously Judaism does not attach much relevance to abortions so why some Christians do is not clear, it was common place (though dangerous) in antiquity and the Jewish community Christ emerged from likely had no laws against abortion.

[historia]

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court.

I don't think there will be much civil unrest, since the immediate, practical effect of this ruling is not as great as some imagine. States where abortion access will be significantly restricted already have few abortion providers due to existing limitations and restrictions. Violence of the type we saw during Prohibition is also unlikely.

The two eras are dissimilar in several respects.

Indeed! I think this is actually an under-appreciated point in your argument.

Anytime laws deny behavior a large percentage of the population thinks should not be proscribed, there are huge enforcement problems.

True, but this is where the ruling in Dobbs is quite different from the 18th Amendment. The latter prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol across the entire country, while Dobbs leaves it up to each state to decide how to regulate abortion.

So if a "large percentage of the population thinks [abortion] should not be proscribed" in a particular state, then that state will likely move to liberalize abortion laws (if they are not so already). While states where a large percentage of the population thinks abortion should be proscribed will do so as well. This makes enforcement easier.

The new prohibition will eventually be repealed, either by a future Supreme Court or by legislation.

Since the entire point of Dobbs is that it is properly the responsibility of the Legislature rather than the Court to determine how abortion should be regulated, any future legislation would not be "repealing" Dobbs so much as following it!

[historia]

Curiously Judaism does not attach much relevance to abortions so why some Christians do is not clear, it was common place (though dangerous) in antiquity and the Jewish community Christ emerged from likely had no laws against abortion.

Because the early Christian community considered abortion to be murder.

From the Church Fathers:

You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born.

[Y]ou shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

[W]omen who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder . . . For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care.

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb.

There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth.

You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to historia in post #26]
It is interesting, at least to me, how the Christian community is schizophrenic about scripture. The New Testament mentions nothing about abortion. The Old Testament is unclear, but there are passages that suggest 'quickening' is a key issue, along with birth.

The key question is when does the zygote become a person. Evangelicals have become fixated on the moment of fertilization, almost a week before the zygote attaches to the uterine wall, 2 or 3 months before any scriptural suggestion.

I have to admit that if I were a physician, I would find it repugnant to destroy human life that had a heartbeat and movement. I've struggled with this over the years. I understand the argument that at conception a unique combination of 23 x 2 chromosomes is created. Yet we should consider the effect of our laws and the social consequences. Powerful arguments can be made that society is better off when women have control over their own bodies. I deeply resent the screeching arguments of those who do not have uteri. But it is equally repellent to hear arguments about lifestyle vs life. I have seen the pain in the faces of young women who are shamed about the difficult decisions they have faced.

In the end, when it comes to legal considerations, I evade the issue and consider it should be decided on the basis of jurisdiction. How on Earth do courts conclude they have jurisdiction over the interior of a living human's body? It is the ultimate invasion. I am not aware they have ever considered the question.

There are cases where courts have considered prosecutors' requests to require a woman to have a C-section because a herpes infection could harm the infant if birth were vaginal. Denying the request of the State, one judge asked, "What would you have us do? Handcuff her, strap her to a gurney, and cut her open?"

On the other hand . . .

Between 1992 and 1996, a small number of women in the UK were forced by the courts to undergo caesarean section against their expressed refusal. . . .

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10696195/

[Inquirer]

Curiously Judaism does not attach much relevance to abortions so why some Christians do is not clear, it was common place (though dangerous) in antiquity and the Jewish community Christ emerged from likely had no laws against abortion.

Because the early Christian community considered abortion to be murder.

From the Church Fathers:

You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born.

[Y]ou shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

[W]omen who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder . . . For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care.

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb.

There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth.

You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten.

Yes but it must be acknowledged that these are all extra Biblical sources and express opinions rather than inspired Christian doctrine. No effort was made to ensure the canon included any literature that prohibits abortion either, so the councils that influenced the formation of the Canon clearly felt no compulsion to include even the Epistle of Barnabas despite its apparent popularity, i.e. this literature has no authority.

Jesus nor Paul has anything whatsoever to say about this, the Bible is to all intents and purposes silent about abortion.

The entire abortion fixation is skewed, no concern is expressed for babies and children in foreign countries dying from Western bombs and unexploded cluster munitions or contamination from agent orange (which causes birth defects to this day). Nor is concern expressed about the deaths of children from sanctions (it is estimated that over a million children died in Iraq as a direct result of Western sanctions limiting medicines in Iraq after the war there).

So I find most of these vocal anti abortionists to be hypocrites not Christians, they are only concerned about a segment of victims it seems to me, American unborn are worthy of defense but foreign already born earn nothing but our contempt.

[Jose Fly]

I'm not so sure. Obviously they're not going to strike down the Separation Clause itself, but I can definitely see them declaring that the interpretation that it requires the government to be neutral on religion is a recent imposition and an interpretation that's not "rooted in our nation's history" (as they said in today's ruling).

IIRC, the dispute in the Kennedy case isn't really about the facts of the matter. Both sides agree that the coach prayed in front of students while he was on the clock as a public official, he was offered a way to pray in private but refused, and his contract was not renewed. The main dispute is over whether the Separation Clause requires government officials to be neutral on religious matters while on the job.

So them pointing to the US's history of public schools teaching from the Bible as justification for today's teachers to be allowed to promote/display/exercise their religion in front of students would not surprise me at all.

The reason I think the Court will fudge the facts is apparent from this summary from Cornell Law School:

Praying at midfield necessarily meant that Kennedy was in full view of all students, parents, and other community members attending the game. At first, when Kennedy began this practice in 2008, he prayed alone. Eventually, however, his players would join him. The level of participation varied over time, sometimes involving no players at all, and sometimes including most of the team, and even players from the opposing team. Over the years, Kennedy’s religious practice evolved from reciting short prayers to conducting lengthier, more involved rituals that included holding up helmets from each team and delivering speeches that combined religious prayers with motivational content.

The coach likes to cast his prayer as a private, personal prayer where he just went to a private place and prayed alone and personally with no intent to make a public statement. This crapola is typical of the flagrant dishonesty practiced frequently by folk who claim to follow the 'Ten Commandments.'

The coach obviously performed his prayer for an audience, in a public place at the 50 yard line of a public school stadium in full view of his players and the public. Kennedy likes to cast this as if he went into a private grotto in the forest and offered up a personal prayer of thanks with no thought of promoting his faith; that he had 'no idea' student athletes would join him in his 'private' moment.
This, of course (and obviously) is typical of the rubbish the religious right uses (ironically) to 'get around' the Constitution while using their public, taxpayer paid, forum to preach 'the gospel.'

I do not know of another large voter block that is more consistently disingenuous than the political arm of the Christian right.

Well, it looks like you were right. The court ruled in his favor based on the bizarre version of events that his prayers were "private". For context, here is one of his "private" prayers....



See that guy in holding up the helmet in the midst of all those students? That's Kennedy having his "private prayer".

EDIT: After reading a bit more about the Kennedy ruling, it turns out that the SCOTUS eliminated the Lemon Test and in its place has ruled that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” That's a huge change, and one that I suspect will be the gateway for Christian theocrats to work to take the country back to the days when the Bible was the main textbook in schools, and the US was basically a quasi, unofficial theocracy.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #29]

You think that's bad? try the Muslim version:

Heathrow Airport: Muslim minicab drivers forced to pray in bus stop.

Really, the fuss we often see from some Muslims makes these US Christian examples laughable.