Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #101

Post by Miles »

Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:21 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:19 pmI'm against abortion when the fetus reaches a point of having some level of consciousness.
That's roughly five months post-partum. I suspect that fifth trimester abortions will remain illegal no matter what.
15 months! I would certainly hope so.

.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #102

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:21 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:19 pmI'm against abortion when the fetus reaches a point of having some level of consciousness.
That's roughly five months post-partum. I suspect that fifth trimester abortions will remain illegal no matter what.
This actually all depends on how you define consciousness. Unfortunately, some utilize different standards or definitions of consciousness to support different viewpoints. Also, different researchers reach different conclusions, and perhaps their views are influenced by ideology (pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion). We can say that a newborn is fully conscious some time after birth. That part is not disputed. But does the fact that the fetus can react to sensory stimuli and show facial expressions count as some level of consciousness? It’s certainly more activity than a rock.

Let’s look at fetal pain for instance,
In 1979, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defined pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.” The IASP further noted that “Pain is always subjective” (IASP, 1979, 250).

The two-part IASP definition requires both a sensory and an emotional experience of pain. While the sensory component is not in question, the requirement for pain to have a self-reflective emotional component has been disputed, as it excludes the possibility of pain not only in the fetus, but also in the infant, the toddler, and the cognitively impaired (ACP 2021; Bellieni 2019; Raja et al. 2020).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 9211059245

Another source says this:
Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing.
And ends with saying this..
Over the last several years, many states, including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, have considered legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia. This year, Arkansas and Georgia enacted such statutes.1,2 Currently, Congress is considering legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions 20 or more weeks after fertilization (ie, 22 weeks’ gestational age) that the fetus has “physical structures necessary to experience pain,” as evidenced by “draw[ing] away from surgical instruments.” The physician must also offer anesthesia or analgesia “administered directly” to the fetus. Physicians who do not comply may be subject to substantial fines, license revocation, and civil suits for punitive damages.3
Source: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

That’s scary because it seems that we’re not sure about the existence of fetal pain. I would not make a decision that could involve pain unless I was certain that there would be no pain. So my conclusion is the same, no abortion after the first trimester.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #103

Post by AgnosticBoy »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:53 pm
There's already laws on the books in several states that anticipate this 'paper ruling'.

There's also talk of using federal legislation to ban abortions should this ruling come into effect.

To the charge of just using slogans or talking points, I say bull butter. That's just an attempt to denigrate and confuse the fact one ain't got em a counter argument. As well, if a 'talking point' is apt, well there we go.

So I'll conclude your accusation of slogans, or 'talking points' is merely your own talking point. And a not apt'n at that.
Can't we at least wait until the Supreme Court makes their decision?
The court has confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion, but stressed that it was not final and did not reflect the final position of any member of the court.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/05/politics ... index.html

The fear and panic is only leading to people to think about the worst case scenarios, or even extreme scenarios (did you see the Twitter reference posted earlier here?).
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #104

Post by JoeyKnothead »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 1:52 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:53 pm There's already laws on the books in several states that anticipate this 'paper ruling'.

There's also talk of using federal legislation to ban abortions should this ruling come into effect.

To the charge of just using slogans or talking points, I say bull butter. That's just an attempt to denigrate and confuse the fact one ain't got em a counter argument. As well, if a 'talking point' is apt, well there we go.

So I'll conclude your accusation of slogans, or 'talking points' is merely your own talking point. And a not apt'n at that.
Can't we at least wait until the Supreme Court makes their decision?
Of course we're kinda stuck speculating, but I see it being overturned, and a lard laden slide behind it.

Evidence here is the upholding of the Texas abortion bounty law that has anyone able to accuse anyone of involvement in an abortion, with no ramifications should the accuser not prove their case. Women's rights, as they always are in Christian circles, are facing a huge hurdle in the renewes push for a theocratic US.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
The court has confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion, but stressed that it was not final and did not reflect the final position of any member of the court.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/05/politics ... index.html
The fear and panic is only leading to people to think about the worst case scenarios, or even extreme scenarios (did you see the Twitter reference posted earlier here?).
I'll debate Twitter stuff on Twitter, unless you wanna quote em here (I have full faith and trust you'd quote and context fairly).

When religious zealots're involved, fear and panic are the order of the day.

Christian zealots run around hollering "sharia" this, and "sharia" that, out of their fear and panic the Muslims'll out oppress em.

We're in a very dangerous time, where folks' sacred beliefs, devoid of science or reason, are forced onto others through force of law. Where "A god I can't show exists has him an opinion I can't show he does" becomes the law of the land.

Heck, now, apparently based on this draft alone, we've got Ben Shapiro hollering to end gay marriage.

When Christian / religious zealots're involved in our courts and legislatures, or just our public discourse, fear and panic are the most rational response.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #105

Post by historia »

Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:49 am
historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:51 pm
Alito's argument would be roughly the same regardless of which way Roe had been decided.
Alito's argument would be the same, but I have little reason to think Alito and the current Court would have agreed to hear the case if it had been decided the other way.
I disagree, but we can come back to that tangent later.

For now, I'm simply looking to underscore the fact that Alito is making a principled legal argument regarding the proper role and responsibility of the Court. You don't seem to disagree.
Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:49 am
To the extent that the discretionary judgement is ideological, that discretion should be for good rather than evil.
But therein lies the whole problem, right?

When it comes to abortion -- more so than perhaps any other issue -- the country is deeply divided over what is good and what is evil. And while I appreciate the fact that there are people on both sides of the debate who are fully convinced that their side unquestionably represents the good while those "baby killers" / "women haters" on the other side are evil, I think the situation is not nearly so simple.

In a scenario like this where reasonable people can disagree over a highly contentious issue, I think the best course of action is to allow principled legal arguments to win the day. It is the only fair way to proceed.

Moreover, in so far as this decision (should it come about) divests the Supreme Court of this highly contentious issue that it had no business deciding in the first place, it is a potential watershed moment in our national politics. In order to tamp down the destabilizing and increasingly violent political polarization in this country, I think we desperately need a renewed focus on federalism, which this ruling supports.
Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:49 am
There is sufficient evidence to the point of certainty that if Roe is overturned, a number of state and local legislatures will remove access to abortion. This alone should be enough for the Court to apply that discretion in a way that allows the country time to move toward legislating broader civil protections before stripping de jure constitutional protections, even if those protections were erroneously granted in the first place.
I'm sensitive to the practical ramifications of this decision, should it come about. But what would "allowing time" actually entail?
Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:49 am
historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:51 pm
It seems to me, then, that your criticism of the Court above is misplaced. We may not all agree on what laws we want to see enacted (or reviewed), but we should all agree on the role and responsibility of the various branches of our government. And, to that end, as tough as some may find it, see this current decision, should it come about, as a welcome restoration of the constitutional order.
If I saw evidence that the current Court were also regularly reversing past rulings that erroneously restricted civil rights and protections, I would agree that the Court were moving toward restoring a "constitutional order." I don't.
By a "restoration of the constitutional order," what I mean is restoring to the Legislature and the Court their proper constitutional roles and responsibilities on this issue, rather than continuing to allow undue power to be aggregated to the Court.
Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:49 am
The correct course is for the Court to be fair in the ultimate application of its power. Since it isn't so now, my position is that it's less wrong to uphold civil protections than to erode them.
But, once again, we're back to the essential problem here: This principle cannot be neutrally applied to this particular issue, as those who oppose abortion would no doubt argue that they are looking to expand civil protections to a great many (unborn) human beings. "Fair" here cannot mean accepting only one side's framing of the issue.

Finally, if we are worried about how the Court wields its power, then we should welcome this decision, and potentially others like it, as it shifts power from the Court to the Legislature (in particular those of the States) where it properly belongs.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #106

Post by JoeyKnothead »

historia wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 6:39 pm ...
Finally, if we are worried about how the Court wields its power, then we should welcome this decision, and potentially others like it, as it shifts power from the Court to the Legislature (in particular those of the States) where it properly belongs.
I contend a woman's right to control her body should not be bound to the whims of the christo-fascists.

They'd love to have this brought to the state legislatures they control. These are folks who think some dude rose up from a three day dead - they don't think rationally, they think religiously.

Naw, a theocracy does not it a democracy make.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
thomasdixon
Apprentice
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:19 pm
Location: usa
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #107

Post by thomasdixon »

Who wants to ban abortions the most?
Jewish population at lowest percentage since founding of Israel
Close to the establishment of the state, the Jewish percentage of the population stood at 82.1%, while today it stands at only 73.9%.
https://tinyurl.com/3fjduh72

Europe’s Jewish population down 60% since 1970, as low as it was 1,000 years ago
https://tinyurl.com/bdt8v2j9

Jewish Population on the Decline in America
https://tinyurl.com/2p95pr3p

World Jewish population drops by 300,000 to 12.9 million
https://tinyurl.com/n33erpbw

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #108

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 8:30 pm ... of the christo-fascists.
Moderator Comment

Best not to attribute a name to a group that does not self-identify as such.

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.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #109

Post by AgnosticBoy »

What I'm worried about is the safety of people if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It seems that there are many alarmists out there making this seem as if this will be doomsday, and that's before any decision is even made. So what will occur when the decision is made, violent protests, more divide?

We keep wondering who leaked this or that. What if the Russians hacked and/or leaked it knowing how fragile we are when it comes to our politics? Any hot button issue, we're ready to cancel, divide, and start violent protests- your typical partisan tactics. I already noticed the attention on the Russian/Ukraine conflict is already decreasing. It's a matter of time before we're too preoccupied with our own divisions to be concerned about any other country.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #110

Post by JoeyKnothead »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 3:54 am What I'm worried about is the safety of people if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It seems that there are many alarmists out there making this seem as if this will be doomsday, and that's before any decision is even made. So what will occur when the decision is made, violent protests, more divide?
If the decision is made to remove a woman's right to control her body, many states have "trigger laws" in place to penalize those involved with abortions. Up to and including charges of murder.

Then there's others who'd seek to revoke the rights of gays to marry.

Of course, to you, such concerns are merely "alarmists", implying their arguments have no merit whatsoever.

Yet it indeed is alarming to know Republicans and Christians even conspired to -ahem- stack the Supreme Court with more far right Christian zealots. They hypocritically refused Garland a hearing, but rushed through the inexperienced Comey under the same circumstances.

It'salarming to see the far right calling all who disagree unpatriotic, or now, in a new low, pedophiles. (Disregarding the confirmed pedophiles in their own ranks).

It's alarming to see these "God's there" folks call an insur-dadgummed-rection "peaceful tourism".

It's alarming to see this nation being destroyed from within, just to "own the libs". These Trump loving, reality distorted folks are alarming.

And they vote.

We should be alarmed to see the Christian Taliban seeking to impose their brand of religiously inspired dooficity upon all Americans. All in the name of a god they're absolutely incapable of showing to have an opinion on the matter.
We keep wondering who leaked this or that.
I don't care who leaked it, so unless you got a mouse in your pocket, well there we go. It's folks not unlike you who claim to speak for "we" who seek to have "we" all living in the United States of Christian Theocracy.

You're so busy with this "both sidesism", you think folks are just "alarmists" when they see their rights being chipped away.

Women deserve their rights just as much as anyone. Full stop. No man, nor no god should ever have the power to take those rights away.
What if the Russians hacked and/or leaked it knowing how fragile we are when it comes to our politics?
That pales in the face of a Theocratic Supreme Court that'd move women to the back of the bus.
Any hot button issue, we're ready to cancel, divide, and start violent protests- your typical partisan tactics.
I joined the army, in part, to protect and defend a woman's right to her body. Not for the 'right' of a religious zealot to strip her rights away.

I note the term "divide" is equivalent to "disagree", but when one side disagrees, they storm the capital in a deathly violent parade of "division".

I'll never be divided from my unfailing, unwavering support of a woman's rights. Never. Not even the ugly ones.
I already noticed the attention on the Russian/Ukraine conflict is already decreasing. It's a matter of time before we're too preoccupied with our own divisions to be concerned about any other country.
I don’t see anything wrong with cleaning up our own house before we go to complaining about how dirty someone else's may be.

This "both sides" angle ails to see the clear differences in tactics.

Who stormed the Capital? Who's trying to erase womens' rights? Who's all hot and bothered cause the gays?

Who's claiming we all gotta live according to the opinions of a god that can't be shown to exist to even have him the first one of em?

When the Overton window's swung so far to the right, even moderates are seen as "alarmists".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply