Sign in to follow this  
Phineas

Anti-abortion bill in Alabama

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Roe v Wade is not overturned yet.

Alabama, et al., passed the most stringent anti-abortion bills they can get through their State Congress EXACTLY for the purpose of forcing a court challenge so it goes to the SCOTUS.

This is only stage 1.  We are VERY FAR from actual anti-abortion law being legislated in the States.

I mentioned this upthread, but it bears repeating:

The laws did not need to be so stringent to elicit a legal challenge.  Utah just passed a post-20-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother; and the ACLU sued.

Those of us who are generally pro-life but agree with exceptions of the sort the Church has suggested, need to come to grips with the fact that politically we are in alliance with some pretty hard-line folks.  (Just as pro-choice Mormons need to understand that when Dems say they want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”, many of them are pretty much lying about the “rare” part, and have no moral qualms about abortion at any stage.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Godless said:

The obvious flaw in this statement is that the mothers of these children made a choice. They were wanted, which is why they're here. A friend of mine was raped and chose to have her rapist's baby. She had been wanting a baby and refused to let what happened to her change that. He's three now and absolutely adorable. She's also very much pro-choice, because she respects the right of other women to choose their own path when their bodies are violated.

Right here is the distinct problem with formulating policy on this issue though. There really is almost no room for compromise. The pro choice side is not going to be swayed by our arguments. No matter what arguments we use all you hear is "We want to strip women of their freedom". On our side it's the same. No matter how eloquent your agruments all a pro life person hears is "Women should have the right to execute their children". How do you legislate a divide that vast? There may be some middle ground in regards to rape, incest, or the life of the mother (as Georgia's law acknowledges) but that's about it. The only option that makes sense is to repeal Roe V. Wade and allow the states to make their own choice. Some states will stay pro choice and others will follow the lead of Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama. Is there any other option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yes and no.  What the argument boils down to, is that an unplanned/disabled human being has no intrinsic worth, except as may be imputed to it by a more powerful human being.  “The unborn man is a being of an inferior order, with no rights that a born man is bound to respect”, as Justice Taney would have put it.  

Excellent use of Justice Taney by the way you warmed this history teacher's heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 “The unborn man is a being of an inferior order, with no rights that a born man is bound to respect”, as Justice Taney would have put it.  

This is exactly the problem I have with the current legal definition of what is human.  Just about every horror story we ever hear about from slavery to concentration camps starts with and justifies itself by saying the targets are not human, subhuman, inferior order human.. etc. etc.  All we have to do is look into our legal history to see how the laws supported this.  Yet to many people today think that what is legal is what is moral.  Many today would find it totally unacceptable to own a slave or gas someone in a chamber, think it is totally ok to tear a person apart. (aka abortion).

Now I can not give any provable means of saying "This is when a mass of cells becomes human"  But I know I would rather error of the side of being too generous and be wrong... Then on error on the side of too strict and be wrong. Because the later is holocaustic level error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I mentioned this upthread, but it bears repeating:

The laws did not need to be so stringent to elicit a legal challenge.  Utah just passed a post-20-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother; and the ACLU sued.

Those of us who are generally pro-life but agree with exceptions of the sort the Church has suggested, need to come to grips with the fact that politically we are in alliance with some pretty hard-line folks.  (Just as pro-choice Mormons need to understand that when Dems say they want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”, many of them are pretty much lying about the “rare” part, and have no moral qualms about abortion at any stage.)

This is the thing.  Utah has a different culture than Alabama who has a different culture in New York.  What state legislators believe is the path to wresting their State’s Rights out of the Feds in each of those states are completely different.  It only takes one state to go through to challenge Roe v Wade and it’s gonna be the one the SCOTUS picks to hear.  After that, then a REAL DEBATE will finally be heard in each of the States to shape that State’s desires on dealing with abortion law.  Virginia could lay a newly born baby on a table, make it comfortable, then kill her.  Alabama could deliver a rapists baby to be put up for adoption.  In any case, it is something each State desires according to their culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the thing.  Utah has a different culture than Alabama who has a different culture in New York.  What state legislators believe is the path to wresting their State’s Rights out of the Feds in each of those states are completely different.  It only takes one state to go through to challenge Roe v Wade and it’s gonna be the one the SCOTUS picks to hear.  After that, then a REAL DEBATE will finally be heard in each of the States to shape that State’s desires on dealing with abortion law.  Virginia could lay a newly born baby on a table, make it comfortable, then kill her.  Alabama could deliver a rapists baby to be put up for adoption.  In any case, it is something each State desires according to their culture.

Agreed.  But there’s a legal maxim, which I may have mentioned upthread, that “hard cases make bad law”—highly emotionally fraught cases tend to be decided less on the strength of the legal issues, than on what the outcome might mean to the specific parties involved.  My suspicion is that Roberts, and maybe Kavanaugh, just don’t have the spine to uphold an abortion regulatory scheme that would compel a ten-year-old rape victim to give birth.  They’d probably be more willing to uphold a regimen like Utah’s, but these chuckleheads in Alabama and Missouri are sucking all the air out of the room.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in that same light...where is the same approach to SSM in regards to legality, law, and a new SC case?

Though there are many measures I support in it's regards, the way it was done seems so heavy handed and so strongly pushed and enforced it would seem to be a much stronger case that could be made in that regards.

Abortion has been on a slow climb to the point where we are today (Roe vs. Wade really wasn't about a woman's right to choose, however, most feel that this is what it is today.  This reasoning of a woman's right to choose was built up upon various other cases that came through via the 90s and later that solidified this form of thinking).  Thus, striking at it's foundations still has to fight against decades of precedence.

On the otherhand, SSM, or the way it is enforced and pushed upon the states at the level it is at does not have this level of precedence thus far.

Of course, with the acceptance of it by the masses (at least by polls that are published by certain groups) it may be that a politician that wants re-election does not want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

That being the case, why abortion and why now above any and other concerns.  I understand the conservative court slant on the SC, but do not understand why this specific issue out of all the various issues conservatives are concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm late to the party, forgive me. 

Generally speaking, I have grown weary of the arguments on most sides of this debate. "But the rights of the child!" "But the rights of the woman!"  

What the Roe v. Wade decision did was a brilliant piece of legal reasoning that somehow failed to make explicit its effect.  What Roe v. Wade managed to recognize, albeit implicitly, is that both the fetus and the woman were human lives worthy of rights and protections. And importantly, the rights and protections of those two parties are in directly conflict with each other. The resolution that was given states, in essence, that so long as the fetus's survival is dependent solely on the mother, the rights and protections of the mother take priority. But when the survival of the fetus is no longer solely dependent on the mother (i.e., viability), its own rights and protections take priority.

On that premise alone, the decision ought to stand.  And if I had my way, we'd clarify and codify that reasoning (of course...it's my reasoning, so it is always right).

The morality of any one individual's choice to abort a pregnancy or not should be left to local culture and religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm late to the party, forgive me. 

Generally speaking, I have grown weary of the arguments on most sides of this debate. "But the rights of the child!" "But the rights of the woman!"  

What the Roe v. Wade decision did was a brilliant piece of legal reasoning that somehow failed to make explicit its effect.  What Roe v. Wade managed to recognize, albeit implicitly, is that both the fetus and the woman were human lives worthy of rights and protections. And importantly, the rights and protections of those two parties are in directly conflict with each other. The resolution that was given states, in essence, that so long as the fetus's survival is dependent solely on the mother, the rights and protections of the mother take priority. But when the survival of the fetus is no longer solely dependent on the mother (i.e., viability), its own rights and protections take priority.

On that premise alone, the decision ought to stand.  And if I had my way, we'd clarify and codify that reasoning (of course...it's my reasoning, so it is always right).

The morality of any one individual's choice to abort a pregnancy or not should be left to local culture and religion. 

Well there's your rub - Planned Parenthood vs Casey on fetal viability and undue burden.  Because, according to Northam, blackfaced governor of Virginia, a baby is not viable unless the mother with her doctor decides it is viable.  After all, if you leave a full-term born baby on the table he will die unless somebody owns up to him being his mother when the biological mother says, nuh uh, that baby ain't gonna be dependent on me!  Meanwhile, a 21-week old baby survived outside of its mother and is now attending pre-school without notable disabilities - who decides her viability?  Because, if she had Down's Syndrome - she could be considered definitely non-viable at 21 weeks and could still be non-viable even if she stayed in her mother's womb for a full term.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Generally speaking, I have grown weary of the arguments on most sides of this debate. "But the rights of the child!" "But the rights of the woman!" 

It's an exhausting issue, that's for sure.

It's also an issue that does nothing but further the divide between us. Both sides are convinced of their own moral superiority over the other.  Sure, politics is polarizing and if you (generic!) can't handle that, find another hobby. Abortion is just SO divisive though. Friendships end over this issue sadly, I am not kidding.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 11:05 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Agreed.  But there’s a legal maxim, which I may have mentioned upthread, that “hard cases make bad law”—highly emotionally fraught cases tend to be decided less on the strength of the legal issues, than on what the outcome might mean to the specific parties involved.  My suspicion is that Roberts, and maybe Kavanaugh, just don’t have the spine to uphold an abortion regulatory scheme that would compel a ten-year-old rape victim to give birth.  They’d probably be more willing to uphold a regimen like Utah’s, but these chuckleheads in Alabama and Missouri are sucking all the air out of the room.  

Okay, I might not be fully versed on how these things work.  But, "hard cases make bad law" may not be applicable anymore because there is already law.  Or in this case, a legal precedent.  So, Roe V Wade and PP vs Casey are legal precedents that any new cases brought up to SCOTUS have to go against.  And my understanding of PP vs Casey is that it's not an all-or-nothing deal.  You can have certain challenges accepted and certain challenges rejected in the new case that either retains or supersedes precedent.  The precedent is - fetal viability and  undue burden with the health of the mother consideration (which includes mental health).  New SCOTUS cases may have a challenge to those provisions but it doesn't mean that the entire case is going to be rejected because it doesn't rise to a level to supersede the mental health of the mother's precedence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well there's your rub - Planned Parenthood vs Casey on fetal viability and undue burden.  Because, according to Northam, blackfaced governor of Virginia, a baby is not viable unless the mother with her doctor decides it is viable.  After all, if you leave a full-term born baby on the table he will die unless somebody owns up to him being his mother when the biological mother says, nuh uh, that baby ain't gonna be dependent on me!  Meanwhile, a 21-week old baby survived outside of its mother and is now attending pre-school without notable disabilities - who decides her viability?  Because, if she had Down's Syndrome - she could be considered definitely non-viable at 21 weeks and could still be non-viable even if she stayed in her mother's womb for a full term.

read carefully: so long as the fetus's survival is dependent solely on the mother.

That word solely is important, and precludes medical intervention.

 

And as a point of order, Northam was discussing a law that reduced the number of physicians to decide that a fetus was non-viable from three to one. And his defense of that was that under the status quo of three physicians, what seemed to be happening (or could be happening) in the subset of life-defeating deformities was that, instead of pursuing the consent of three physicians, the child was being delivered and immediately placed on hospice, effectively. His statements were not about general child birth and a mother choosing to starve a new born child out of convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's an exhausting issue, that's for sure.

It's also an issue that does nothing but further the divide between us. Both sides are convinced of their own moral superiority over the other.  Sure, politics is polarizing and if you (generic!) can't handle that, find another hobby. Abortion is just SO divisive though. Friendships end over this issue sadly, I am not kidding.  

It would be nice if people realized that laws developed out of moral superiority over another group tend to be bad laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

The resolution that was given states, in essence, that so long as the fetus's survival is dependent solely on the mother, the rights and protections of the mother take priority. But when the survival of the fetus is no longer solely dependent on the mother (i.e., viability), its own rights and protections take priority.

A fancy way of saying that “might makes right”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I might not be fully versed on how these things work.  But, "hard cases make bad law" may not be applicable anymore because there is already law.  Or in this case, a legal precedent.  So, Roe V Wade and PP vs Casey are legal precedents that any new cases brought up to SCOTUS have to go against.  And my understanding of PP vs Casey is that it's not an all-or-nothing deal.  You can have certain challenges accepted and certain challenges rejected in the new case that either retains or supersedes precedent.  The precedent is - fetal viability and  undue burden with the health of the mother consideration (which includes mental health).  New SCOTUS cases may have a challenge to those provisions but it doesn't mean that the entire case is going to be rejected because it doesn't rise to a level to supersede the mental health of the mother's precedence.

I don’t quite follow all of your reasoning here.  Yes, the precedent is already established;  but the ostensible point of these new statutory regimens is to get the issue back before SCOTUS to replace the precedent.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

read carefully: so long as the fetus's survival is dependent solely on the mother.

That word solely is important, and precludes medical intervention.

That's actually not in the SCOTUS case.  Roe v Wade, for instance considers viability at third trimester.  PP vs Casey took out trimester considerations and focuses simply on fetal viability and added undue burden without defining viability or who determines viability.

 

Quote

 

And as a point of order, Northam was discussing a law that reduced the number of physicians to decide that a fetus was non-viable from three to one. And his defense of that was that under the status quo of three physicians, what seemed to be happening (or could be happening) in the subset of life-defeating deformities was that, instead of pursuing the consent of three physicians, the child was being delivered and immediately placed on hospice, effectively. His statements were not about general child birth and a mother choosing to starve a new born child out of convenience.

No.  He was talking about child birth, general or otherwise.  He was talking about LAW.  The Virginia Law does not define life-defeating deformities.  It simply states "with the advisement of a physician".

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t quite follow all of your reasoning here.  Yes, the precedent is already established;  but the ostensible point of these new statutory regimens is to get the issue back before SCOTUS to replace the precedent.   

YES.  There there are many points of provision that challenges precedent.  Not just one.  Rape and incest (rolled into Mother's Health in precedent) is just one provision.  If that's the only point of the case that is moved up to SCOTUS, the SCOTUS can choose not to hear the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Do you have an actual statement you're trying to make?

Yes.  The strong capriciously dismiss the humanity of the weak who can’t speak for themselves, using the very weakness of their victims as an excuse for their latter-day holocaust.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's actually not in the SCOTUS case.  Roe v Wade, for instance considers viability at third trimester.  PP vs Casey took out trimester considerations and focuses simply on fetal viability and added undue burden without defining viability.

You should go back and read what I wrote more closely.  "What the Roe v. Wade decision did was a brilliant piece of legal reasoning that somehow failed to make explicit its effect." I never claimed it was any part of any SCOTUS case. I lamented that it wasn't. I wish it were, because it's much cleaner piece of reasoning than what we have now.

Quote

No.  He was talking about child birth, general or otherwise.  He was talking about LAW.  The Virginia Law does not define life-defeating deformities.  It simply states "with the advisement of a physician".

Actually, as I said before, it requires three physicians, at present.  The law he was commenting on would reduce that from three physicians to one. And his comments were that it would be preferable to allow one physician to assist in that determination than waiting for delivery and palliative treatment following those births. But such nuances tend to be lost on reactionary lunatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yes.  The strong capriciously dismiss the humanity of the weak who can’t speak for themselves, using the very weakness of their victims as an excuse for their latter-day holocaust.  

And on what grounds do you propose that the mighty (i.e., those with governmental power) be able to tell pregnant women they have no choice over their medical care and pregnancies beginning at the moment of conception?

Keep in mind, JAG, I'm not weighing in on the morality of any abortion. But I am rather concerned with how we manage these rights and protections in a pluralistic society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

You should go back and read what I wrote more closely.  "What the Roe v. Wade decision did was a brilliant piece of legal reasoning that somehow failed to make explicit its effect." I never claimed it was any part of any SCOTUS case. I lamented that it wasn't. I wish it were, because it's much cleaner piece of reasoning than what we have now.

Actually, as I said before, it requires three physicians, at present.  The law he was commenting on would reduce that from three physicians to one. And his comments were that it would be preferable to allow one physician to assist in that determination than waiting for delivery and palliative treatment following those births. But such nuances tend to be lost on reactionary lunatics.

Hope you're not calling me a reactionary lunatic.  I watched that entire interview and this part of the interview was not about the reduction from 3 physicians to 1.  By the way, it's not just reduction of 3 physicians to 1, it doesn't have to be in a hospital either.  Which basically means, a physician in Planned Parenthood with interest in fully formed baby body parts can decide and influence the mother to terminate a baby including and up to post birth.  So yeah, you can dismiss that concern as "nuance lost on reactionary lunatics".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

And on what grounds do you propose that the mighty (i.e., those with governmental power) be able to tell pregnant women they have no choice over their medical care and pregnancies beginning at the moment of conception?

Personhood.

As I've said many times... the battle is not Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life.  The battle is PERSONHOOD.  Viability, of course, is not the current determination of Personhood because, if that's the case, we would be able to trample on the rights of a person who can't breathe on his own without interference.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this