Abortion rights backers rally in anger over post-Roe future

[JimBob1952]

Yep, I don't think there's a constitional scholar or historian who would agree with his interpretation.

Yes, but at least I can spell "constitutional."

This is from the Cornell Law School website (boldface mine):

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

So my interpretation is correct, but too narrow.

SeniorBen, you remind me of my late brother-in-law. We were going to put on his gravestone, "Often wrong, but never in doubt."

 

[Murrmurr]

People have generally complained about the decisions of the Supreme Court. If this amendment were to pass, the people would be permitted to make the choice. As popular as Roe v Wade is, I would expect the law would change in all states to allow abortions, except some states may include certain restrictions and for some people that may be an issue.

In my opinion, some states have taken their abortion laws too far. I think from just scanning over the various states, New York may be the least restrictive. They allow abortions right up to full term. I read that in NYC, black women have had more abortions than deliveries. Is that possible?

An alternative would be to abolish abortion laws altogether on the basis of Women's Rights and/or everyone's right to make their own healthcare decisions and the protection of doctor-patient privacy.

It would follow, then, that each state decide when life begins / if and when an unborn child's rights are protected.

I'd love to see the federal gov't make it compulsory that every state offer free voluntary sterilization.

 

[SeniorBen]

Yes, but at least I can spell "constitutional."

This is from the Cornell Law School website (boldface mine):

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

So my interpretation is correct, but too narrow.

SeniorBen, you remind me of my late brother-in-law. We were going to put on his gravestone, "Often wrong, but never in doubt."

Well, at least you finally decided to do a little research.

 

[JimBob1952]

An alternative would be to abolish abortion laws altogether on the basis of Women's Rights and/or everyone's right to make their own healthcare decisions and the protection of doctor-patient privacy.

It would follow, then, that each state decide when life begins / if and when an unborn child's rights are protected.

Well, at least you finally decided to do a little research.

Maybe you can collect a few emojis from other people. It's kind of pathetic to laugh at your own lame jokes.

 

[Murrmurr]

@JimBob1952

What are you talking about? It's never lame to laugh at my jokes.

 

[mrstime]

You know it is very simple.......you are against abortion, then don't have one.

 

[Alligatorob]

An alternative would be to abolish abortion laws altogether on the basis of Women's Rights and/or everyone's right to make their own healthcare decisions and the protection of doctor-patient privacy.

It would follow, then, that each state decide when life begins / if and when an unborn child's rights are protected.

Not sure I follow.

If, as you say in the first paragraph, everyone should have the right to their own health care decisions how do you reconcile that with the second paragraph "state decide when life begins / if and when an unborn child's rights are protected".

Seems to me you can have one or the other, but not both. I prefer the first, let women make their own decisions.

Number two leaves open the possibility of a state deciding on a very early date, perhaps at conception. That would take the rights away.

 

[Della]

I'd love to see the federal gov't make it compulsory that every state offer free voluntary sterilization.

Yes, and free birth control dispensed at free clinics, and public service commercials encouraging the use of these benefits.

Whenever we talk about abortion, we always hear about the rare exceptions, the woman who was that one out of 1000 for whom the birth control method failed, the woman whose health is in danger, or the woman carrying a fetus with serious health complications, but the large majority of abortions are to women who simply use abortion as their only birth control method.

The reason checked in a large study by most of the women who get abortions was, "Not ready to have a baby." Is it too harsh to suggest that if you're sexually active and not ready to have a baby you use birth control?

The theme most often expressed by the pro-choice side is that women should have control of their own bodies, so why do so few of them take control of their fertility by getting an IUD or something similar? Because once a fetus is growing inside her it's still her body but there's another body in there and by the time it's six or seven months old I think she has rights too.

There was a time, not that long ago, when parents had almost total legal rights over their children, they could beat them, send them down coal mines to work at age six, keep them out of school, almost anything. People said they had the right to do what they wanted with their own children and it was nobody else's business.

But we as a society, began to see that the child had certain rights, too, and made laws to protect them. Nobody said if you don't think kids should be beaten, don't beat yours. We protect children from abusive parents.

Maybe a late term fetus has a right not to be torn to shreds and we should protect them from their mothers at some point.

 

[Murrmurr]

Not sure I follow.

If, as you say in the first paragraph, everyone should have the right to their own health care decisions how do you reconcile that with the second paragraph "state decide when life begins / if and when an unborn child's rights are protected".

Seems to me you can have one or the other, but not both. I prefer the first, let women make their own decisions.

Number two leaves open the possibility of a state deciding on a very early date, perhaps at conception. That would take the rights away.

Good call.

prt 1. If an unborn child is a person at some point, then, as people, they have rights.

prt 2. Where I wrote "It would follow, then, that each state decide when life begins" I should have written "each state would want to decide when life begins." To solve that problem, I suggest we leave it to science to determine when life begins...let's call it wholly viable life.

I've seen pregnant women's bellies be pushed way out to one side by the baby's arms, legs, and head, and roll around when the baby does. I've seen images of unborn babies sucking their thumbs, playing with the umbilical cords, scratching their heads....

That's a person in there. We're not allowed to kill people. That's why the death penalty was abolished, I think. It's unconstitutional.

 

[Murrmurr]

Yes, and free birth control dispensed at free clinics, and public service commercials encouraging the use of these benefits.


Maybe a late term fetus has a right not to be torn to shreds and we should protect them from their mothers at some point.

Birth control pills and devices are free all over the place in California.

And I agree with that last statement 100%. (agree about abusive parents, too, of course)

 

[Alligatorob]

To solve that problem, I suggest we leave it to science to determine when life begins...let's call it wholly viable life.

I know that seems a an attractive option, but it doesn't seem workable to me.

Once an egg is fertilized it could be called "wholly viable life". Or at any point in fetus development. Don't see how science can help. And as medical technology advances this will change...

If an unborn child is a person at some point, then, as people, they have rights.

Again this is a personal and moral judgement, not one that science could help with. I do not believe "an unborn child" is ever a person, however opinions vary considerably on this. And that is just what they are opinions.

 

[Murrmurr]

I know that seems a an attractive option, but it doesn't seem workable to me.

Once an egg is fertilized it could be called "wholly viable life". Or at any point in fetus development. Don't see how science can help. And as medical technology advances this will change...

Again this is a personal and moral judgement, not one that science could help with. I do not believe "an unborn child" is ever a person, however opinions vary considerably on this. And that is just what they are opinions.

I disagree. Science can determine wholly viable life now. It's determined via in-utero brain activity scans, MRIs, fetus fluids analysis, and 3D imaging. The current criteria is, the fetus will survive outside the womb without extraordinary measures, which do not include measures taken with full-term babies born with breathing and cardiac problems, deformities, etc.

 

[Murrmurr]

I disagree. Science can determine wholly viable life now. It's determined via in-utero brain activity scans, MRIs, fetus fluids analysis, and 3D imaging. The current criteria is, the fetus will survive outside the womb without extraordinary measures, which do not include measures taken with full-term babies born with breathing and cardiac problems, deformities, etc.

@Alligatorob - Also, it's workable because it's not unconstitutional. The age for wholly viable life could certainly change over time, but there's nothing in the constitution that would prohibit changing it based on scientific research.

 

[Lara]

We need to figure out how to settle this thing, the endless fighting does no one good.

1. Keep the taxpayers money out of it because it's not fair to those who strongly believe that life begins at conception to be facilitating the termination of life. What this means to them, with all their heart, mind, and soul, is that the abortions they are facilitating with their own money are breaking one of the Ten Commandments over and over again. The government is forcing them to facilitate what they believe to be a significant sin.

2. The ones who choose to be free to do whatever they choose for their own bodies and choose for the bodies growing inside them (who also have the father's blood running through that body's veins and therefore a separate person...the father deserves a say so) should be focusing their energy on mobilizing the masses of pro-choice people with like minds to raise the money from the private sector for all those who choice is termination.

 

[Alligatorob]

1. Keep the taxpayers money out of it because it's not fair to those who strongly believe that life begins at conception to be facilitating the termination of life. What this means to them, with all their heart, mind, and soul, is that the abortions they are facilitating with their own money are breaking one of the Ten Commandments over and over again. The government is forcing them to facilitate what they believe to be a significant sin.

2. The ones who choose to be free to do whatever they choose for their own bodies and choose for the bodies growing inside them (who also have the father's blood running through that body's veins and therefore a separate person...the father deserves a say so) should be focusing their energy on mobilizing the masses of pro-choice people with like minds to raise the money from the private sector for all those who choice is termination.

Sounds like a very reasonable basis for compromise!

 

[SeniorBen]

Yes, and free birth control dispensed at free clinics, and public service commercials encouraging the use of these benefits.

Whenever we talk about abortion, we always hear about the rare exceptions, the woman who was that one out of 1000 for whom the birth control method failed, the woman whose health is in danger, or the woman carrying a fetus with serious health complications, but the large majority of abortions are to women who simply use abortion as their only birth control method.

The reason checked in a large study by most of the women who get abortions was, "Not ready to have a baby." Is it too harsh to suggest that if you're sexually active and not ready to have a baby you use birth control?

The theme most often expressed by the pro-choice side is that women should have control of their own bodies, so why do so few of them take control of their fertility by getting an IUD or something similar? Because once a fetus is growing inside her it's still her body but there's another body in there and by the time it's six or seven months old I think she has rights too.

There was a time, not that long ago, when parents had almost total legal rights over their children, they could beat them, send them down coal mines to work at age six, keep them out of school, almost anything. People said they had the right to do what they wanted with their own children and it was nobody else's business.

But we as a society, began to see that the child had certain rights, too, and made laws to protect them. Nobody said if you don't think kids should be beaten, don't beat yours. We protect children from abusive parents.

Maybe a late term fetus has a right not to be torn to shreds and we should protect them from their mothers at some point.

Late term abortions are extremely rare. Only 1.4% occur after 21 weeks, and they're usually due to health concerns for the mother or fetal deformities. Anti-abortion zealots make it seem like they're the norm for abortion seekers.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Misa's Granddaughter just sent us a picture of the whole high school having an abortion walk out in Lawrence Ks. yesterday.

 

[SeniorBen]

Good call.

prt 1. If an unborn child is a person at some point, then, as people, they have rights.

prt 2. Where I wrote "It would follow, then, that each state decide when life begins" I should have written "each state would want to decide when life begins." To solve that problem, I suggest we leave it to science to determine when life begins...let's call it wholly viable life.

I've seen pregnant women's bellies be pushed way out to one side by the baby's arms, legs, and head, and roll around when the baby does. I've seen images of unborn babies sucking their thumbs, playing with the umbilical cords, scratching their heads....

That's a person in there. We're not allowed to kill people. That's why the death penalty was abolished, I think. It's unconstitutional.

If we're allowing science to decide when "life begins," why would that need to be decided at the state level? Do scientists' opinions on fetal viability vary depending on which state they're in? I don't think so. Science isn't determined by politics or religion.

You just made the argument for abortions to be legalized at the federal level.

 

[CarolfromTX]

You could get high school students to walk out to save the cockroaches if it meant getting out of class without repercussion. Just sayin’. Plus I really don't put much weight on the opinions of 16 year olds.

 

[Sunny]

I think "when life begins" is the wrong term to use. "Life" probably actually begins at the moment of conception. But that doesn't mean that that living clump of cells is anything close to a full human being, and won't be for months.

At some point, it does turn into a human being, bit by bit. The question to be determined is: when does that clump of cells get to be considered an actual human being? My best guess would be at the time of viability, which does become earlier all the time.

It is clearly insane to equate the ending of a pregnancy with a microscopic clump of cells in there, with a late-term pregnancy with an obvious baby who has a good chance of living outside the womb. But as has been pointed out, there are very few (or maybe none) of the abortions in today's world being performed on late-term fetuses who can live outside the womb, except in extreme circumstances such as a baby who couldn't live at all, or a pregnancy that is killing the mother.

 

[Della]

as for how it happens...how did you get here?
did you blame your mother for having sex and who helped her have the sex, who deposited the 'seed'...
it was not the woman.
but of course all the blame and heat falls upon the woman.
...which is so witch hunty.

Where have you been the last fifty years? Blame and heat? The sainted Single Mother is the most revered woman on the planet! She is brave and strong!

She is the one who has dozens of good birth control methods at her disposal, things that can be seen to once in the cold light of day and forgotten about for the next three years, unlike the men who are expected to use something, every single time, at the last minute, possibly when inebriated, that's not terribly effective. Yet still he's the bad guy who "got her pregnant" as though it was never consensual.

From then on she has total control of a life that belongs to both of them. It's up to her whether or not she takes the morning after pill. It's her decision alone whether or not to abort his baby. She decides whether or not to put it up for adoption. She may make all these decisions without even telling him that a child of his exists.

If she is married and she and her husband decide to divorce the chances of him getting custody are extremely thin no matter what sort of mother she is.

If she decides to raise the baby by herself she will be eligible for tax credits in the thousands, subsidized housing, Aid to Dependent Children, subsidized childcare, food stamps, and sometimes a free college education.

 

[Alligatorob]

You could get high school students to walk out to save the cockroaches if it meant getting out of class without repercussion

Would have worked for me!

 

[Murrmurr]

If we're allowing science to decide when "life begins," why would that need to be decided at the state level?

It wouldn't.

 

[CarolfromTX]

Late term abortions are extremely rare. Only 1.4% occur after 21 weeks, and they're usually due to health concerns for the mother or fetal deformities. Anti-abortion zealots make it seem like they're the norm for abortion seekers.

And pro abortion zealots make it seem like most of the abortions are due to incest or rape. Neither is true so I’d call it a wash.

 

[mrstime]

Maybe a late term fetus has a right not to be torn to shreds and we should protect them from their mothers at some point.

Too many people think late term means a viable baby. Not so, late term is about 4 months into the pregnancy. Any doctor that would kill a viable baby would and should be tried for murder.