IGX

USSC ended Roe v Wade on June 24 2022.

I wanted to see abortion up to the first trimester remain legal. Spent years trying to figure out a Biblical basis for a ban on abortion.

Exodus 21 :22-25 says

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Banning abortion is wildly unpopular (80% wanted to keep Roe v Wade in place) yet here we are. Similarly on some other topics. A normal political party that wanted to stay in power would normally, naturally evolve to represent the people In order to stay in power, or would get voted out. I get the sense that the republicans are putting in place the things needed to run things as a distinct minority party, using the natural electoral advantage of red states, gerrymandering,, voter suppression, and legislative deadlock that punts the big issues to the 6-3 Supreme Court to let the fewer dictate to the majority.

Does not bode well for our democracy.

Every state had laws restricting abortion when Roe was handed down. In 1972 the Court invented a new right without basis in either the Constitution, precedent, or common law. It's irrelevant what percentage of people think a legal decision is right or not when most of them haven't read Roe and don't know anything about law or jurisprudence in the first place. If the people want abortion to be legal then their elected representatives can pass or repeal the relevant laws.

It's a return to democracy. Now the people can decide, not have SCOTUS make policy all on its own.

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:30 pm Every state had laws restricting abortion when Roe was handed down. In 1972 the Court invented a new right without basis in either the Constitution, precedent, or common law.

The bill of rights says “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

My body-my choice seems about as fundamental right as can exist. If you don’t have control over your own body, what control do you really have?

That was really unclear thinking. By that logic the Ninth Amendment means one can be arrested or jailed. The courts have never held that people can't be detained or deported or imprisoned. No one, even Roe supporters, says that.

The Fifth Amendment says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We hear a lot about a woman's right to choose, what about the baby's right to live?

Are you arguing the fetus is a person?

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:59 pm By that logic the Ninth Amendment means one can be arrested or jailed. The courts have never held that people can't be detained or deported or imprisoned. No one, even Roe supporters, says that.

So the argument that someone doesn’t have autonomy over their own body, to the extent that they can’t make their own medical decisions, is that the Constitution says people can be detained or arrested?

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:16 pm Are you arguing the fetus is a person?

Normal human gestation is 40 weeks.

If a child can be born at roughly 21 weeks and still live, are they a person or a "fetus"?

Curtis spent 275 days in the ICU. Today he's 19 months old. His twin sister, C'Asya, did not survive.

https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12 ... ature-baby

Did Curtis become a human being because his parents wanted more than palliative care?

Do we consider a zygote, barely conceived, and floating down Mom's fallopian tubes as a person? Most would not recognize such an entity as a human being. Yet they are likely to become a human being.

Where in time do we draw the line where ending that pregnancy is murder? Some say at conception, others say "never".

I hope that the repeal of Roe v Wade stimulates a discussion. One is desperately needed, a nice long one.

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:43 pm My body-my choice seems about as fundamental right as can exist. If you don’t have control over your own body, what control do you really have?

A lot of us had similar worries about the mRNA jab. I got jabbed yesterday as part of my series on Hep. I'm not anti-vax. I'm against being a crash test dummy for Wall Street.

Still waiting on the Novavax. The FDA approved it on the 22nd of June. Hoping to see it soon.

Gene wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:18 pm If a child can be born at roughly 21 weeks and still live, are they a person or a "fetus"?

Those are good questions, but from a constitutional perspective, From a body of law perspective, I don’t think a fetus has rights. I do think that a woman does. I understand the idea of competing interests, totally.

My wife had 3 abortions.

They occurred while we were trying to have our second kid, and each was due to a nonviable pregnancy. Devastating. The first were actually twins.

I guess they could have let nature take its course for months until the inevitable miscarriage or stillbirth. Instead they terminated them either through a procedure or by artificially inducing labor. Abortions.

It was an extraordinarily tough set of conversations with the doctor for each. The idea of having some government stooge sitting in our consultation deciding for us if he felt it met the needs of the state…that guy would have a dangerous job telling the family they can’t make their own health decision. Or maybe in Texas a vigilante could have reported us and gathered a bounty.

We have three kids now, by the way.

MFers who couldn't even define what a "woman" is a week ago are in full panty-wad-mode. What the fuck ever.

nafod wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:55 am I guess they could have let nature take its course for months until the inevitable miscarriage or stillbirth. Instead they terminated them either through a procedure or by artificially inducing labor. Abortions.

It was an extraordinarily tough set of conversations with the doctor for each. The idea of having some government stooge sitting in our consultation deciding for us if he felt it met the needs of the state…that guy would have a dangerous job telling the family they can’t make their own health decision. Or maybe in Texas a vigilante could have reported us and gathered a bounty.

We have three kids now, by the way.

I'm glad that you had the right to make that decision. I'm happy that you recognize some limits to government power.

I'm sorry that you had to endure this situation.

Gene wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:52 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:55 am I guess they could have let nature take its course for months until the inevitable miscarriage or stillbirth. Instead they terminated them either through a procedure or by artificially inducing labor. Abortions.

It was an extraordinarily tough set of conversations with the doctor for each. The idea of having some government stooge sitting in our consultation deciding for us if he felt it met the needs of the state…that guy would have a dangerous job telling the family they can’t make their own health decision. Or maybe in Texas a vigilante could have reported us and gathered a bounty.

We have three kids now, by the way.

I'm glad that you had the right to make that decision. I'm happy that you recognize some limits to government power.

I'm sorry that you had to endure this situation.

Thanks. I do know it’s an outlier, along with rape and incest victims.

I’ve always felt the common ground is in unwanted pregnancies, and in faith that if someone has a kid they (mom and kid) won’t be doomed to poverty and a generally shittier lot in life. You attack those two prime drivers of abortions, and abortions go down. Nobody actually wants to get an abortion.

But really, can there be a more fundamental right than body autonomy?

Based on what I've read:

* 75% of women seeking an abortion are low income
* 50% of them are below the poverty line
* 59% of them already have at least one kid
* women carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term are 4x more likely to end up below the poverty line
* legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over the period of 1991-2014

From an economic perspective, this is a great way to keep the poor impoverished and increase crime.

The idea that someone who is dirt poor, with kids, will be able to travel and pay for housing to get an out-of-state abortion is unrealistic. This is really only going to affect poor people.

Bram wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:57 pm Based on what I've read:

* 75% of women seeking an abortion are low income
* 50% of them are below the poverty line
* 59% of them already have at least one kid
* women carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term are 4x more likely to end up below the poverty line
* legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over the period of 1991-2014

From an economic perspective, this is a great way to keep the poor impoverished and increase crime.

The idea that someone who is dirt poor, with kids, will be able to travel and pay for housing to get an out-of-state abortion is unrealistic. This is really only going to affect poor people.

The states with the most restrictive abortion laws also provide the least support to the mother and child, unfortunately. Not hard to predict the future outcome.

Nafod you’re mixing two different questions together: at what point should abortion be illegal and who should make the laws. The western norm seems to be illegal at 12-16 weeks and that the laws should be made by legislatures. What are your views? Please be specific because public opinions on the legality or abortion vary based on number of weeks.

Turdacious wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:36 am Nafod you’re mixing two different questions together: at what point should abortion be illegal and who should make the laws. The western norm seems to be illegal at 12-16 weeks and that the laws should be made by legislatures. What are your views? Please be specific because public opinions on the legality or abortion vary based on number of weeks.

Abortions should be legal, period. From a rights standpoint, control of your own body is as fundamental as you can get. It should fall under the “rights not enumerated…not disparaged” part of the Bill of rights.

From a practical standpoint, if you get to the 16 week point, or even the 12 week point, you know and have known for an extended period that you are pregnant. There are really only two reasons you’d want an abortion after that point:
1. You wanted an abortion before that point but couldn’t get one. The state blocked you from exercising autonomy over your own body, or you are in a place where they aren’t accessible.
2. You wanted a baby, but something happened. Mom came down with cancer, fetus not viable, etc.

In the first case, easy access to abortion would help ensure no late abortions.

In the second case, you have an incredibly hard decision to make with family and your care team. A government rep should not be in the room.

Gene wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:18 pm Spent years trying to figure out a Biblical basis for a ban on abortion.

The Catholic Church went back and forth on this for centuries, permitting it before movement could be felt, or not, until one of the Pope Innocents put a stop to it. There's no clear biblical info on this apart from how.

In the US, abortion was used as a wedge to unite Catholics and Evangelicals as a voting block. Evangelicals didn't care about abortion until the '70s, considering it an issue for the papists.

https://religiondispatches.org/the-evan ... bad-faith/

Usually the youth vote is slightly less valuable than the squirrel vote, but abortion bans are extremely unpopular, and if something like this had to happen, I'm glad it's before the midterms.

LOL never respond to a successful parody account unless you love getting owed.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:57 pm LOL never respond to a successful parody account unless you love getting owed.

Lol

You have a lot of shit going on here.

1) Abortion for health reasons. Including viable fetuses with severe issues that would cause hardship to the parents or the mother's health.
2) Abortion in cases of rape or incest.
3) Abortion as birth control.

We should actually, as a society, NEVER FUCKING GET TO #3. We should have mandatory sex education, easy access to birth control (both male and female) AND emergency contraception (Day After, etc). #3 is primarily a low income tactic especially in the south and in poor ethnic areas.

The abortion ban is a move by religious right Supreme Court Justices and an abuse of their power. This happens with alarming frequency because the Supreme Court does not have a code of ethics that, when violated, results in the loss of the position. You might not have liked Roe, but it stood for over 50 years, and only when religious zealots took over the SC majority did it get overturned. This SC is also completely on the side of corporate interests, not actually the citizens of the country.

Why are abortion rates so low in Europe, etc....because they never get to #3.

Shaf's right. Absolutely right.

And #3 dwarfs #1 and #2 in numbers.

And there's also the harvesting of organs for dubious medical research.

We'll see how evil the US really is now that ppl can't hide behind judges making the decisions for them.

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:30 pm Every state had laws restricting abortion when Roe was handed down. In 1972 the Court invented a new right without basis in either the Constitution, precedent, or common law.

Really? By what right does the government require a woman to incur the medical risks (preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, birth injuries, episiotomies, yadda yadda yadda) of carrying her baby to term?

Abortion bans seem to be a clear & obvious 13th amendment violation. Holding the woman to a term of service or labor, involuntarily, without being convicted of a crime.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:49 pm

Gene wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:18 pm Spent years trying to figure out a Biblical basis for a ban on abortion.

The Catholic Church went back and forth on this for centuries, permitting it before movement could be felt, or not, until one of the Pope Innocents put a stop to it. There's no clear biblical info on this apart from how.

In the US, abortion was used as a wedge to unite Catholics and Evangelicals as a voting block. Evangelicals didn't care about abortion until the '70s, considering it an issue for the papists.

https://religiondispatches.org/the-evan ... bad-faith/

Usually the youth vote is slightly less valuable than the squirrel vote, but abortion bans are extremely unpopular, and if something like this had to happen, I'm glad it's before the midterms.

This is the part of the Bible that is the Torah. We have a couple of thousand years worth of debate between people who spent their entire lives discussing what this meant - Jewish scholars.

What did they think? Was the unborn a "fruit" or a person, and what did "fruit" mean here? I think that their opinion counts for a lot since it is the core of their Faith.

Gene wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:04 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:49 pm

Gene wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:18 pm Spent years trying to figure out a Biblical basis for a ban on abortion.

The Catholic Church went back and forth on this for centuries, permitting it before movement could be felt, or not, until one of the Pope Innocents put a stop to it. There's no clear biblical info on this apart from how.

In the US, abortion was used as a wedge to unite Catholics and Evangelicals as a voting block. Evangelicals didn't care about abortion until the '70s, considering it an issue for the papists.

https://religiondispatches.org/the-evan ... bad-faith/

Usually the youth vote is slightly less valuable than the squirrel vote, but abortion bans are extremely unpopular, and if something like this had to happen, I'm glad it's before the midterms.

This is the part of the Bible that is the Torah. We have a couple of thousand years worth of debate between people who spent their entire lives discussing what this meant - Jewish scholars.

What did they think? Was the unborn a "fruit" or a person, and what did "fruit" mean here? I think that their opinion counts for a lot since it is the core of their Faith.


fruit.JPG

One thing to contemplate on in going back to the Torah, or for that matter originalism in the Constitution, is that it was all written by dudes. No female voices.