Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2040
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 149 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
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #2

Post by Miles »

.



Q. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

A. No.



.

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2040
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #3

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:15 pm Q. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
A. No.
Q. Why?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #4

Post by Miles »

.


Because I believe that for the first three months of pregnancy the decision to have an abortion lies with the woman and her doctor; and the state's interest in her welfare is not "compelling" enough to warrant any interference.


.

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2040
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #5

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:03 pm
I believe that for the first three months of pregnancy the decision to have an abortion lies with the woman and her doctor; and the state's interest in her welfare is not "compelling" enough to warrant any interference.
Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on that point? For example, can a reasonable person conclude that the state has a compelling interest beginning at, say, two months into the pregnancy?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #6

Post by Miles »

historia wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:35 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:03 pm
I believe that for the first three months of pregnancy the decision to have an abortion lies with the woman and her doctor; and the state's interest in her welfare is not "compelling" enough to warrant any interference.
Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on that point?
Of course.
For example, can a reasonable person conclude that the state has a compelling interest beginning at, say, two months into the pregnancy?
A reasonable person certainly could, but that doesn't mean their conclusion on this particular point is reasonable. Few if any reasonable people are always reasonable.


.

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2040
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #7

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:00 pm
historia wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:35 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:03 pm
I believe that for the first three months of pregnancy the decision to have an abortion lies with the woman and her doctor; and the state's interest in her welfare is not "compelling" enough to warrant any interference.
Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on that point?
Of course.
Okay, good. So, on matters where reasonable people can disagree, who gets to decide the law?

Should we invest nine people -- none of whom are experts in the relevant medical fields -- with making that decision?

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

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #8

Post by Miles »

historia wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:35 am
Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:00 pm
historia wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:35 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:03 pm
I believe that for the first three months of pregnancy the decision to have an abortion lies with the woman and her doctor; and the state's interest in her welfare is not "compelling" enough to warrant any interference.
Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on that point?
Of course.
Okay, good. So, on matters where reasonable people can disagree, who gets to decide the law?

Should we invest nine people -- none of whom are experts in the relevant medical fields -- with making that decision?

Or should it be made by the People and their representatives through the normal legislative process?
If by "nine people" you mean the US Supreme Court, all they do is interpret law already in place; deciding if it's binding or not and in what way. And the law they looked at was a Texas law banning abortion. The Texas law only allowed abortions if necessary to save the woman’s life.


In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court declared the right to an abortion is a fundamental liberty that the state must have a very strong interest to limit. Within limits, three months, that interest was not proven to exist.

From Subscript Law

"States are allowed to regulate a wide variety of actions in the interest of protecting people. But the Constitution limits the states’ rights to regulate. One of those limits is based on an individual’s right to liberty. In Roe v. Wade, McCorvey (Roe) argued the Constitution protected her liberty to choose to have an abortion, above the state’s right to regulate abortion.

The Supreme Court declared the right to an abortion is a fundamental liberty that the state must have a very strong interest to limit.

The Court ruled that the woman’s liberty right (right to control whether or not she is pregnant) is stronger than the state’s interest in the fetus’ life up until a certain point in the pregnancy. That point is the “point of viability” – when the fetus could survive on its own outside of the womb [which, in 1973, medical science said was 24-28 weeks]. After the point of viability, the state’s interest in protecting the fetus outweighs the woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy. After the point of viability, the Court ruled, a state can prohibit women from getting abortions."


And I agree with the Court's decision. :approve:

.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18718
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1688 times
Been thanked: 1142 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #9

Post by JoeyKnothead »

historia wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:58 am 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.
I stand firm with a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases, and to thank her when she lets me do to her body what pleases me.

If we outlaw abortion, only the wealthy'll have access to a safe medical procedure. I won't post that picture of the lady who died in the motel there, with how to do an abortion manuals by her side.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2040
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #10

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:34 pm
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court declared the right to an abortion is a fundamental liberty that the state must have a very strong interest to limit.
Yes, the Court declared that abortion is a right, even though there is no clear, unambiguous Constitutional provision that grants that. And, for that very reason, the Court, under a different set of justices, could simply change their mind and revoke this right.

It seems to me that the abortion debate hinges on the question of whether a fetus has full moral status under the law -- i.e., is the fetus a person?

The Roe decision agrees, noting (para. 86):
Roe v. Wade wrote:
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.
The decision also says that the Court lacks the necessary expertise to decide that question. But, undeterred, goes on to make a de facto decision anyway, by declaring that a pregnant women's right to privacy takes precedent over the rights of the prenatal child during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Is this really the best way to decide whether abortion should be legal or not? Even if you personally like the outcome of the Roe decision, wouldn't it be better if that outcome was actually enshrined in law?

Post Reply