Author Topic: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade  (Read 33048 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #425 on: June 25, 2022, 09:11:13 AM »
I hadn't really appreciated before how a democracy-limiting institution like the Supreme Court could actually defend and enhance the democratic element of our republic. With good people in charge, of course.

A very good piece on what’s wrong with the “if it’s not written explicitly in the constitution it’s not a right” theory. There’s a solid argument that what just happened is judicial activism dressed up as “plain reading”:

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/?fbclid=IwAR2HX5fexdxF-gYcpK6oNQBWXRO8x-ZqVDz-vukDCb8oOD5Nljq8M_BUuXw&fs=e&s=cl

If you don't like judicial activism, you should see that old, dead decision from a few decades ago. Roe v Wade, I think it was called. You'll really hate that one.

"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,817
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #426 on: June 25, 2022, 09:16:39 AM »
I hadn't really appreciated before how a democracy-limiting institution like the Supreme Court could actually defend and enhance the democratic element of our republic. With good people in charge, of course.

If you don't like judicial activism, you should see that old, dead decision from a few decades ago. Roe v Wade, I think it was called. You'll really hate that one.

The article linked is a very accessible explanation for why Roe was not activism and why many unenumerated rights are protected by the constitution. Roe was a predictable outcome from a long line of cases that recognised limits on government power to regulate the race a person chooses to marry, their decision to use birth control, parental rights, and others. If you accept that there were rights reserved for the people, it’s predictable that is.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #427 on: June 25, 2022, 09:19:36 AM »
From the Reason article, quoting Blackwood:

Life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb."

Movement of the baby in the womb can be felt "quickening" as the article said late in pregnancy (around 25 weeks or so).  So many have felt that was when the soul entered the body.

However, human fetuses move much earlier, at least at six weeks.  This was not known in Blackstone's time, as it could not be felt.

So if we accept fetal movement as the dividing line for legal protection, the age for legal abortion would need to be moved to prior to six weeks.

Here is a video of a seven week fetus moving.  This is clearly a living human being:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjhFNEV6shY

However, the criteria of movement does not make sense to declare a human being worthy of legal protection.  If that were so, it would be ok to kill paralyzed persons.

Laws banning human abortion at earlier stages of development actually started being written towards the latter part of the 19th century- prompted by discoveries in embryology.  Science realized that the "quickening" standard was false, and that early embryos and fetuses are living human beings, just like later term fetuses are.  This pro-life movement was led by doctors, guided by science.

I do not believe in "ensoulment"... I think it is wrong to kill unborn human beings because they are living human beings, and therefore deserving of the right not to be killed, despite whatever physical traits they may lack.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,817
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #428 on: June 25, 2022, 09:21:31 AM »
Slightly tangential, but I just heard Biden, right before he signed the new gun legislation, stating that the feds will be watching states and will take legal action against any state that attempts to block women from crossing state lines for an abortion.

So what if someone wants to cross from CA to AZ to buy 30 round mags or unbutchered ARs, or even more applicably, to buy ammo which they can otherwise only buy in person, in state?

The extensions might go further than you think - neither the right to own any specific kind of gun nor the right to self defense are enumerated in the constitution. You could imagine a future court listing all the restrictions states asserted in the past, like types of weapons or “duty to retreat” type restrictions on self defense that in substance reverse Heller and uphold all manner of gun law.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,817
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #429 on: June 25, 2022, 09:24:17 AM »
From the Reason article, quoting Blackwood:

Life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb."

Movement of the baby in the womb can be felt "quickening" as the article said late in pregnancy (around 25 weeks or so).  So many have felt that was when the soul entered the body.

However, human fetuses move much earlier, at least at six weeks.  This was not known in Blackstone's time, as it could not be felt.

So if we accept fetal movement as the dividing line for legal protection, the age for legal abortion would need to be moved to prior to six weeks.

Here is a video of a seven week fetus moving.  This is clearly a living human being:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjhFNEV6shY

Laws banning human abortion at earlier stages of development actually started being written towards the latter part of the 19th century- prompted by discoveries in embryology.  This pro-life movement was led by doctors.

However, the criteria of movement does not make sense to declare a human being worthy of legal protection.  If that were so, it would be ok to kill paralyzed persons.

I do not believe in "ensoulment"... I think it is wrong to kill unborn human beings because they are living human beings, and therefore deserving of the right not to be killed, despite whatever physical traits they may lack.

The point he was making there was that abortion was not criminalised early in pregnancy, and so the states have no historical power to regulate it before physically being able to feel movement. You’re submitting your own view of what the historical powers should have been, but the point of the reason article is that a power the state didn’t have and that it wasn’t granted in the constitution or otherwise is one it shouldn’t have now.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,964
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #430 on: June 25, 2022, 09:41:20 AM »
Be sure to wave to the person going the other way for an abortion

Just stay home and ask her to bring back some magazines.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,745
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #431 on: June 25, 2022, 10:33:37 AM »
The extensions might go further than you think - neither the right to own any specific kind of gun nor the right to self defense are enumerated in the constitution.

The Founding Fathers were pretty big on, "If it is not specifically forbidden, then it is allowed" vs "If it is not specifically allowed, then it is forbidden". I would suspect they would be on the "get any gun you want" side of the line vs the "we only meant muskets" side.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,964
  • APS Risk Manager
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,745
  • I'm an Extremist!
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,849
  • On Patrol In The Epsilon Eridani System
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #434 on: June 25, 2022, 11:54:51 AM »
Yes it's killing and we're okay with that because it's for the public good

Feminist Writer: 'Abortion Involves Killing...And That's OK'
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/06/25/feminist-writer-abortion-is-killing-and-thats-ok-n2609310
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,622
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #435 on: June 25, 2022, 01:32:40 PM »
Clarence Thomas Creates Shockwaves For Stating Next ‘Error’ That Supreme Court Should ‘Correct’
https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-creates-shockwaves-for-stating-next-error-that-supreme-court-should-correct?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=member

I believe Thomas opinion was concurring.  I thought I heard that meant it was not law.  Either way, sounds like he considered some of these issues should be left to the states to regulate. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/supreme-court-overturns-constitutional-right-to-abortion/
Looking at pieces of this, Alito did not agree with Thomas on that particular issue. 

« Last Edit: June 25, 2022, 01:55:13 PM by MechAg94 »
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,841
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #436 on: June 25, 2022, 01:48:30 PM »
The article linked is a very accessible explanation for why Roe was not activism and why many unenumerated rights are protected by the constitution. Roe was a predictable outcome from a long line of cases that recognised limits on government power to regulate the race a person chooses to marry, their decision to use birth control, parental rights, and others. If you accept that there were rights reserved for the people, it’s predictable that is.

I generally agree with that position as do i think most people. The problem is that we cannot agree on what constitutes a living human being. Your fellow travelers have attempted to push it to the point that killing an unborn baby up to and including at the moment of birth is OK.
At what point does a human life begin? At the moment of conception is one side of the argument. The other side is apparently some as yet undefined period of time after the birth occurs.
That is what the disagreement comes down to. One side sees it as eliminating an unwanted mass of tissue, the other side sees it as murder.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,745
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #437 on: June 25, 2022, 02:25:56 PM »
Anyways, so I guess the whole leaker thing is going to fade away? I was kinda thinking that was still important, but it seems like neither side cares about finding the culprit anymore.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,849
  • On Patrol In The Epsilon Eridani System
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #438 on: June 25, 2022, 02:30:35 PM »
Anyways, so I guess the whole leaker thing is going to fade away? I was kinda thinking that was still important, but it seems like neither side cares about finding the culprit anymore.

Not much point in finding the leak after the ship sunk.
But it would be nice to know to help prevent the next one.
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,964
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #439 on: June 25, 2022, 02:48:48 PM »
Your fellow travelers have attempted to push it to the point that killing an unborn baby up to and including at the moment of birth is OK.

I suspect the number of pro-choice people who hold that opinion is a small segment that is not indicative of the beliefs of pro-choice people as a whole.  Probably much like the number of 2nd Amendment supporters who interpret it as including the right to own nuclear weapons.  As with so many things, the ability of such people to gain attention to their beliefs is greater than their actual numbers, in these social media days.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

bedlamite

  • Hold my beer and watch this!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,769
  • Ack! PLBTTPHBT!
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #440 on: June 25, 2022, 02:50:27 PM »


In reality, they would be pushing both buttons.
A plan is just a list of things that doesn't happen.
Is defenestration possible through the overton window?

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,841
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #441 on: June 25, 2022, 03:25:57 PM »
I suspect the number of pro-choice people who hold that opinion is a small segment that is not indicative of the beliefs of pro-choice people as a whole.  Probably much like the number of 2nd Amendment supporters who interpret it as including the right to own nuclear weapons.  As with so many things, the ability of such people to gain attention to their beliefs is greater than their actual numbers, in these social media days.

Probably right but the few times I have had pro-choicetards screeching at me about keeping women down and pushing handmaidens tale bullshit while accusing me of being a misogynistic racist I lump them right in with the most vile of their fellow travelers and dead baby parts merchants.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,849
  • On Patrol In The Epsilon Eridani System
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #442 on: June 25, 2022, 04:26:06 PM »
AG to the rescue

Quote
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Garland: Justice Department to 'use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom' after high court ruling.

    — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) June 24, 2022
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/06/25/attorney-general-merrick-garland-will-use-all-the-tools-at-the-dojs-disposal-to-protect-reproductive-freedom/
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #443 on: June 26, 2022, 12:09:15 AM »
The point he was making there was that abortion was not criminalised early in pregnancy, and so the states have no historical power to regulate it before physically being able to feel movement. You’re submitting your own view of what the historical powers should have been, but the point of the reason article is that a power the state didn’t have and that it wasn’t granted in the constitution or otherwise is one it shouldn’t have now.

Wife beating was also not criminalized in most of the early history of the USA (until around the mid 1800 to late 1800s- which is the same time period abortion laws starting getting more restrictive in the USA.)  It was considered a right under common law for a man to beat his wife.

Does this mean beating your wife should be recognized as a right under the 9th Amendment? 

In the same manner, because killing unborn children early in pregnancy was legal in early America, it does not follow that killing unborn children now should be considered protected under the ninth amendment (or any other amendment).


Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,887
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #444 on: June 26, 2022, 12:16:44 AM »
I suspect the number of pro-choice people who hold that opinion is a small segment that is not indicative of the beliefs of pro-choice people as a whole.  Probably much like the number of 2nd Amendment supporters who interpret it as including the right to own nuclear weapons.  As with so many things, the ability of such people to gain attention to their beliefs is greater than their actual numbers, in these social media days.

Abortion until birth is already legal already in these states:

Alaska
Colorado
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
New York
*Plus, the District of Columbia

Abortion until birth is the official position of NARAL, which has 2.5 million members.  There are a lot of people who feel this way.  It seems like every society has one group of people they treat like trash.  In the USA it is human beings before birth.

sumpnz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,304
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #445 on: June 26, 2022, 12:18:33 AM »
Wife beating was also not criminalized in most of the early history of the USA (until around the mid 1800 to late 1800s- which is the same time period abortion laws starting getting more restrictive in the USA.)  It was considered a right under common law for a man to beat his wife.

Does this mean beating your wife should be recognized as a right under the 9th Amendment? 

In the same manner, because killing unborn children early in pregnancy was legal in early America, it does not follow that killing unborn children now should be considered protected under the ninth amendment (or any other amendment).



Also, as embryology advanced laws started to tighten the available time frame to abort.  Once it was apparent that the first time the mother felt the baby move meant nothing in particular in terms of the baby becoming human that standard fell quickly.  It’s pretty likely that had the founders understood human fetal development like we do that abortion would have been 100% illegal.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #446 on: June 26, 2022, 12:33:24 AM »
I suspect the number of pro-choice people who hold that opinion is a small segment that is not indicative of the beliefs of pro-choice people as a whole.  Probably much like the number of 2nd Amendment supporters who interpret it as including the right to own nuclear weapons.  As with so many things, the ability of such people to gain attention to their beliefs is greater than their actual numbers, in these social media days.

That's an extremely poor analogy, given that late term abortion is a regular occurrence in this country, while private ownership of nukes is presumably non-existent (and I presume also illegal).

As a general rule, attempts to both-sides extremism in U.S. politics end in failure.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

JN01

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 883
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #447 on: June 26, 2022, 01:00:38 AM »
A very good piece on what’s wrong with the “if it’s not written explicitly in the constitution it’s not a right” theory. There’s a solid argument that what just happened is judicial activism dressed up as “plain reading”:

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/?fbclid=IwAR2HX5fexdxF-gYcpK6oNQBWXRO8x-ZqVDz-vukDCb8oOD5Nljq8M_BUuXw&fs=e&s=cl

That reasoning could support an opposite outcome.  SCOTUS could uphold a federal ban on abortion as an unenumerated right of a human fetus to not be killed.  Abortion regulation (among many other issues) rightfully belongs to the states.

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,153
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #448 on: June 26, 2022, 01:09:33 AM »
I just want to see what happens when they run up against a case regarding taxpayer grants or subsidies to groups which actually do elective abortions...
 
Because that's the term that most of us really don't like.
 
Elective.
Blog under construction

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,964
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Being reported the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade
« Reply #449 on: June 26, 2022, 01:21:25 AM »
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/ Can someone provide actual data on the number of abortions done at birth?
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.