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.
Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Moderator: Moderators
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2611
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #31This is definitely splitting hairs. Especially when not even two sentences later I said precisely the same thing: that laws are passed though our elected officials! I appreciate the impulse to be precise, but this is just unnecessary noise in our conversation.
Let me return the favor, though:
I think what you mean to say here is not that Roe v. Wade would prevail, but rather that legalized abortion would prevail. So let's attach your point to more relevant numbers, from Pew:Miles wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 5:09 pmIn which case here in the USA Roe v. Wade would prevail. 2019 graphic.historia wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:43 pm
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.
Okay, so, if you support liberal abortion laws and think the people are behind you, why continue to defend and uphold a controversial and tenuous court ruling like Roe v. Wade? Just pass the abortion laws you want to see enacted through the normal legislative process.Pew wrote:
Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
Continuing to defend Roe has political repercussion, which Benjamin Wittes has articulated well in his piece in the Atlantic, "Letting Go of Roe."
It appears you may have lost the thread of our discussion. The "role" I'm referring to here is the Court deciding questions like when life begins, which we both agreed was not part of its intended function.
In Roe, the Supreme Court was supposed to decide if the Texas abortion law was constitutional. But the Constitution says nothing about abortion. It doesn't say you can have an abortion, and it doesn't say you can't have one. On this, as on so many other issues, it is silent, leaving the matter to the Legislature to decide.
By divining a "right" to abortion in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, while trespassing overtly into medical and philosophical questions that it is in no position to answer, the Court in Roe v. Wade went beyond its role of considering the constitutionality of a law, and instead decided what it thought the abortion laws ought to be.
That's not just my opinion, or the opinion of those who just don't want abortion to be legal. As noted above, that's also the opinion of some legal scholars who favor liberal abortion laws but find Roe to be problematic.
Right, and that's precisely why the Court has to be very careful not to exceed its intended role. Our country benefits greatly if states as different as Utah and New York can make their own decisions in as many areas as is feasible.
In fact, there would be far less political polarization in the United States today if we did more of that. Overturning Roe would be a good start.
I agree completely. I am in no way, shape, or form suggesting that Supreme Court justices should be elected. An independent judiciary is vital to our constitutional order.
But, with those lifetime appointments comes the important proviso that the Court should not exceed its narrow role in interpreting the law and deciding the constitutionality of laws. If the Court starts acting like a mini-legislature, declaring what the laws ought to be, then the Court will become increasingly politicized.
It wasn't all that long ago that Supreme Court nominations weren't the knock-down-drag-out political affairs they are today. What has changed is that the Court has increasingly taken on this role where it decides what the laws ought to be on abortion or gay marriage or other controversial social issues. It has increasingly acted as a mini-legislature!
And the electorate have cottoned on to this. Increasingly, our presidential elections have become about who gets to nominate the next Supreme Court justice -- who gets to be the next "arbiter of wisdom," as you called it, to decide the next hot-button social issue. And so many people vote accordingly.
That's not how the Court is supposed to work. And this blurring of roles has done significant damage to the social and political fabric of our country.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3514
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1139 times
- Been thanked: 733 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #32As a society, we've tried very hard to eliminate the effects of the plain fact that if you're smarter, you have a better chance of proving your innocence and getting away without punishment, regardless of whether you're innocent or not. We've tried lawyerism, and all that's done is shift the effect (but not totally) from intellect to money. Now those with money win.Miles wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:34 amThen let's hope you have one mature and wise teenage daughter.Purple Knight wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:56 pmI also support her right to be tried by whatever group of peers she deems worthy.
The current lawyer system does not do away with this effect; it just costs society dearly to shift it toward bringing the privilege to money instead of intelligence. The idea that letting people choose who their peers are also preserves this effect is not really a good objection unless you can think of a system that doesn't and argue that whatever the cost is, is worth it.
But if you believe in lawyerism, there's no reason a silly teenager couldn't be counseled by her lawyer as to which group of peers she should choose, and just as it works today, shifting that privilege from intelligence to money, as well as providing (at cost to everyone) a certain baseline of that privilege for free.
If we as regular people (I'm not a politician and neither are you, I assume) can readily determine without much disagreement which laws are inherently unfair, I think the matter is more who will follow through with that determination as opposed to who will instead ignore it to make laws in their own interest.
It's true that voters can do this, but they're not forced to. Voters have every right to vote for fair laws. Politicians are often faced with choices between sacrificing fairness or sacrificing their power, a selective system which favours and thus produces politicians who choose their incumbency over the right choice.
But my question was, alright, if a law that blocks racial discrimination is a must, fine, but are there any laws at all that aren't inherently wrong, but aren't must-haves either? For example, take laws that make insurance mandatory. They enhance safety and are arguably good but what if a populace genuinely wants to choose for themselves whether they want to carry insurance or not, instead of being forced to buy it, and they're all actually okay with the fact that in exchange, someone might hurt them and be unable to reimburse them?
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #33In which a picture's worth a thousand words...
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2611
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #34Yes, the State has a vested interest in protecting the health and wellbeing of its citizens, which is why there are laws regulating medicine and medical procedures -- and, yes, tattoo parlors, as well. Even if you want abortion to be legal, there will nevertheless be laws regulating it, as there are laws regulating all medical procedures.
Interestingly, some feminists have criticized Roe on these grounds. Even though we informally talk about it as granting a right to abortion, on a more technical level it left the decision to the "medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician," and so really protects the doctor's right to perform an abortion.
As I noted above, this really is the crux of the abortion debate: the status of the unborn child. Your others concerns and considerations pale in comparison to that question, and it's one that has to be decided -- either through the courts or the legislature. My interest in this thread, however, is in regards to that latter question: which process is best to make that decision?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1261 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #35Each year in the United States, surgeons perform approximately 64 million surgical procedures, ranging from tooth extraction to open heart surgery. Yet, notwithstanding the frequency of surgical procedures and their often critical importance to patient health, no state or federal agency either approves the use of new surgical procedures or directly regulates existing procedures.historia wrote:Yes, the State has a vested interest in protecting the health and wellbeing of its citizens, which is why there are laws regulating medicine and medical procedures -- and, yes, tattoo parlors, as well. Even if you want abortion to be legal, there will nevertheless be laws regulating it, as there are laws regulating all medical procedures.
No matter though as I was asking you why the courts would need to be involved. Sounds like they are involved because they are involved from your reasoning above. "there will nevertheless be laws regulating it, as there are laws regulating all medical procedures."
When I get a tooth pulled, the courts are not involved. Why would/should abortions be treated differently?
Clownboat wrote:Point to the nose of the unborn and then we will need to discuss the value differences
Then it is settled for me.As I noted above, this really is the crux of the abortion debate: the status of the unborn child.
An unborn "X" does not have the same value as a born child. Therefore we should not treat "X" as if it were a born child.
Which process is involved when you go to the dentist to get a tooth removed? Why not use the same process to remove an unwanted fetus?historia wrote:Your others concerns and considerations pale in comparison to that question, and it's one that has to be decided -- either through the courts or the legislature. My interest in this thread, however, is in regards to that latter question: which process is best to make that decision?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2611
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #36On the contrary, each state has laws and a medical board that regulates medical providers and practices.
Most new and existing medical procedures fall within existing laws and regulations, to be sure, but some things are proscribed. In California, for example, "sexual orientation change efforts" are not allowed for patients under the age of 18. Several sections of the California Business and Professions Code concern the regulation of abortion.
They don't. In case you missed it, my argument in this thread is that they shouldn't be involved. Abortion should be regulated by laws established through the Legislature, as is the case for other medical practices.
The reason why the courts have been involved is simply an accident of history, of course. Abortion was previously illegal. And changing an existing law requires an act of either the Legislature or the Court. In the United States, it just so happens that the Supreme Court moved to legalize abortion nation-wide. In most other countries, the decision to liberalize abortion laws went through the Legislature.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3514
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1139 times
- Been thanked: 733 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #37I agree. Or failing that, through a popular vote.
That's not really the Supreme Court's business.
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #39What about as a form of saving the life of the brood mare?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin