If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

[palerider]

It is not there, but that is a moot point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional or not.

So what they say is right by fiat?

Nevertheless, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, or a new law is enacted the status of the unborn has not changed.

The purpose of these discussions is not to state the obvious. If you are going to take a side, then you should be prepared to defend that side. Stating what is hardly constitutes a defense.

The 14th Amendment appears to say that to you and even to me. Considering that the Supreme Court via Roe v. Wade though otherwise, that is a moot point. No such law has been legislated.

Ergo the unconstitutionality of the roe v wade decision.

Yet they did.

Are you saying that they had the right to do it or they did it whether they had the right or not?

You are right, they do reverse themselves from time to time. They may reverse themselves on Row V. Wade, but they have not at this point. Their decisions are not unconstitutional. They are the ones who get to say what is unconstitutional or not, no matter what words are in the constitution despite your unwillingness to accept that.

You don't believe that the court can make an unconstitutional decision? Are they infallable like the pope (as if ). If they were to decree tomorrow that we actually do not have the right to refuse to incriminate ourselves in a court of law, or that we really don't have the right to speak freely, you would meekly accept their decree as constitutional because they said it was?

 

[palerider]

palerider wrote:
Everybody thinks that their beliefs just happen to mesh with what is right. However their choice of words in their rhetoric gives them away. For instance, persons of religion on this issue will try to garner sympathetic support for their position by referring to the unborn as being "innocent"(of sin?). Whereas we are left to draw the inference that the expectant mother cannot be "innocent" because she did the horizontal mambo and is guilty of the sin of sex and need to held responsible for this grievous sin. Unless of course by innocent they mean that the unborn has not broken any law (not likely what they meant).

Exactly what are unborns guilty of? And feel free to use the word guilt in any sense you like?

 

[top gun]

The supreme court was operating with science as it was known a quarter of a century ago. You have the advantage of all the knowledge we have gained since then but you disregard it in favor of the outdated knowledge upon which they based their decision. Why is that? Are you so conservative that you are unable to even accept new knowledge?

The science hasn't changed. The wording may have changed a little but everyone back in the days of Roe knew abortion terminates "kills" the fetus. What do you think people back then thought... it was some kind of a magical procedure that just mystically turned back time... come on! That was never the issue and you know it. The issue was... could a woman be forced to carry a child to term. None of this has changed.

The only thing that has changed is that a distinction was recently added that in extremely late term pregnancies where the fetus was very likely to be viable (able to live on its own outside the womb) that was too late in the fetuses development for it to be aborted... except in cases of life of the mother. And as I've said I don't see this as being unreasonable at all.

It's painfully obvious that you're trying to do a similar thing to what "creation scientists" try to do (and I use the word scientist in a NOT context) when they try to do the "dinosaurs roamed the earth with man hogwash" to fill large gaps in the chronological & geological time-line and the omissions of any reference to dinosaurs in the Bible. It doesn't fit one way so they "create" reasons to make it seem like it "should" fit.

What you're doing is trying to personalize the human breeding process down to where the split second there is a fertilized egg, a couple human cells, it is a full blown person.

The only possible way this train of thought would ever hold up is if somehow, someday someone could prove either a "soul" or some kind of consciousness and memory of that state. Anything before viability is a woman prerogative plain and simple. And that is how the law all across America is enforced.

 

[palerider]

The science hasn't changed. The wording may have changed a little but everyone back in the days of Roe knew abortion terminates "kills" the fetus. What do you think people back then thought... it was some kind of a magical procedure that just mystically turned back time... come on! That was never the issue and you know it. The issue was... could a woman be forced to carry a child to term. None of this has changed.

Read the decision. You would be amazed at how good it feels to know what you are talking about.

It's painfully obvious that you're trying to do a similar thing to what "creation scientists" try to do (and I use the word scientist in a NOT context) when they try to do the "dinosaurs roamed the earth with man hogwash" to fill large gaps in the chronological & geological time-line and the omissions of any reference to dinosaurs in the Bible. It doesn't fit one way so they "create" reasons to make it seem like it "should" fit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What you're doing is trying to personalize the human breeding process down to where the split second there is a fertilized egg, a couple human cells, it is a full blown person.

Nope. Fertilization takes some time. It isn't a split second process. But when it is complete, you have a human being. Even after 9 months of gestation you don't have a "full blown" human being. Even after 9 months of gestation and 20 years of growth and development you don't have a "full blown" human being. We aren't fully mature until sometime between our 25th and 30th birthday. Then we are "full blown" human beings.

The only possible way this train of thought would ever hold up is if somehow, someday someone could prove either a "soul" or some kind of consciousness and memory of that state. Anything before viability is a woman prerogative plain and simple. And that is how the law all across America is enforced.

I can't find anything in the constitution about souls or the requirement that one have a soul in order to enjoy the protections of the law. Maybe you an show me where it is. And since you enjoy the protection of the law but aren't even a little bit more human than a zygote can you prove when you got this soul that you believe affords you that protection?

 

[top gun]

palerider;18675]Read the decision. You would be amazed at how good it feels to know what you are talking about.

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross- appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:
1. While 28 U. S. C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.
2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.
(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy [p114] must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.
(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66. Pp. 125-127.
(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life- saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.
5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling [p115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166. 314 F. Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Sarah Weddington reargued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Roy Lucas, Fred Bruner, Roy L. Merrill, Jr., and Norman Dorsen.

Robert C. Flowers, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellee on the reargument. Jay Floyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellee on the original argument. With them on the brief were Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Alfred Walker, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Henry Wade, and John B. Tolle.*

[Blackmun, J. -- Opinion of the Court]
[Stewart, J. -- Concurring opinion]
[Rehnquist, J. -- Dissenting opinion]
[Burger, C. J. -- Concurring (both Roe and Doe)]
[Douglas, J. -- Concurring (both Roe and Doe)]
[White, J. -- Dissenting (both Roe and Doe)]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision about abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the court defined broadly in Doe v. Bolton.

So exactly what I said you'd think I wrote it myself.

Nope. Fertilization takes some time. It isn't a split second process. But when it is complete, you have a human being. Even after 9 months of gestation you don't have a "full blown" human being. Even after 9 months of gestation and 20 years of growth and development you don't have a "full blown" human being. We aren't fully mature until sometime between our 25th and 30th birthday. Then we are "full blown" human beings.

Nope. There's a huge discernible difference between 2 human cells up to viability and a newborn baby to an adult.

I can't find anything in the constitution about souls or the requirement that one have a soul in order to enjoy the protections of the law. Maybe you an show me where it is. And since you enjoy the protection of the law but aren't even a little bit more human than a zygote can you prove when you got this soul that you believe affords you that protection?

I don't believe in any of it. Soul... needing a soul... constitutional need for a soul... none of it. Because I believe the "life" of 2 human cells up to viability do not constitute the personhood needed for standing as it relates to a woman's right to choose. As per The United States Supreme Court ruling.

 

[palerider]

Because I believe the "life" of 2 human cells up to viability do not constitute the personhood needed for standing as it relates to a woman's right to choose. As per The United States Supreme Court ruling.

Ooooohhhh. I see. Your position is an article of your faith. You can't prove any of it but it is what you believe.

And you also believe that whatever the court says is right. If the court says that you don't have a right to free speech or the right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, you will meekly accept what they say without question. If they decide once again that blacks aren't human beings and actually have no rights you will be OK with that as well. Hell, if they say that you have no right to live, you will be fine with that decision. In fact, whatever they say is just hunky dory with you.

Do I understand you?

 

[top gun]

palerider;18677]Ooooohhhh. I see. Your position is an article of your faith. You can't prove any of it but it is what you believe.

Not at all. My position is one of no faith. Until someone can prove that there is a soul in a small cluster of cells... then I see none. I see a difference between cell life and a person. As I compare varying degrees of development and viability I can reasonably make distinctions. And then I can evaluate & compare that time-line of development and factor in the rights and the needs of the woman involved just as The United States Supreme Court did.

And you also believe that whatever the court says is right. If the court says that you don't have a right to free speech or the right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, you will meekly accept what they say without question. If they decide once again that blacks aren't human beings and actually have no rights you will be OK with that as well. Hell, if they say that you have no right to live, you will be fine with that decision. In fact, whatever they say is just hunky dory with you.

Do I understand you?

No I think it's quite obvious that you don't. I'm saying in this case I've analyzed it for myself and I believe that the high court made a difficult but correct decision. I think it should and will stand.

 

[dahermit]

palerider wrote:
Exactly what are unborns guilty of? And feel free to use the word guilt in any sense you like?

They are neither guilty or innocent. But If I wanted to garner sympathy for them I would always prefix the word unborn with innocent. I think that post was very clear in its meaning.

 

[dahermit]

stretch marks

Originally Posted by dahermit
This statement will make Mare very happy; this is all she wants. But, she wants it to be left up to the woman to decide if it will ruin her long term health.

Stretch marks don't constitute a long term health issue.

Diabetes, stroke, varicose veins, dropped uterus, post partum depression, suicide, death, etc., etc., oh, and involutional melancholia if they live long enough.

 

[r0beph]

They are neither guilty or innocent. But If I wanted to garner sympathy for them I would always prefix the word unborn with innocent. I think that post was very clear in its meaning.

It is clearly a appeal to emotion subterfuge. The fact remains. I'll agree it is life, it's human in that it contains the dna which gives it potentiality. However as recognized by Roe vs. Wade, the potentiality does not imbue rights. If the cells never developed beyond a cluster of cells perhaps 100 in total, no one would consider it a "death" as this as this is not recognizable as personage by anyone, law or personal consideration in all, they'd simply see it as a pregnancy that didn't develop. The muxxing of words and literary acrobatics by the anti-abortion faculty is a broad ranging front. Innocent fetus, PROLIFE, feticide, these are all appeals to emotion which are simply not valid arguments. As pointed out before there is no guilt or innocence in a fetus. You say pale, that you are only appealing to science, but science has not changed. No one is denying that a fetus is "living" but it is not a human being, your argument that a newborn is not a "full fledged human being" is lacking and trying to compare apples and oranges.

I don't see an egg as a chicken (fertilized or otherwise) but I do see chicks as chickens although they're not fully developed.

 

[palerider]

Not at all. My position is one of no faith. Until someone can prove that there is a soul in a small cluster of cells... then I see none. I see a difference between cell life and a person. As I compare varying degrees of development and viability I can reasonably make distinctions. And then I can evaluate & compare that time-line of development and factor in the rights and the needs of the woman involved just as The United States Supreme Court did.

Faith is defined as belief in a thing that is not based in fact or is not provable. You certainly haven't been able to prove that unborns are not human beings. And you have not been able to prove that all human beings are not persons. And the constitution clearly says that no person shall forfiet his life without due process of the law. And yet, you believe that the court made the correct decision. That, my friend, is faith.

No I think it's quite obvious that you don't. I'm saying in this case I've analyzed it for myself and I believe that the high court made a difficult but correct decision. I think it should and will stand.

Everyone analyzes their faith to one degree or another and finds a reason to believe. You are completely unable to prove any of the things the court based its decision on so by definition it is a matter of faith for you. When we first started talking I wasn't aware that you were a zealot, one of the faithful.

 

[palerider]

They are neither guilty or innocent. But If I wanted to garner sympathy for them I would always prefix the word unborn with innocent. I think that post was very clear in its meaning.

Not innocent?

Innocent - adj. - 1. free from moral wrong 2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless. 3. not involving evil intent or motive.

If one is not innocent, then one is guilty. If unborns are not free from guilt, which guilt do they have.

Words mean what they mean. Tell me, if you lived a couple of hundred years ago and viewed slavery as a terrible human rights violation, what adjectives might you use when describing them"1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury ?

Tell me, if you had lived a couple of hundred years ago and saw slavery as a terrible human rights violation and were arguing for its end, what adjectives might you have used when you were describing them (slaves) Or is it your opinion that when one is arguing for a group that is being denied their most basic rights that it is inapporopriate to try and garner sympathy for them?

 

[palerider]

Diabetes, stroke, varicose veins, dropped uterus, post partum depression, suicide, death, etc., etc., oh, and involutional melancholia if they live long enough.

As I have said. If her life or long term health is at risk, she has the right to defend herself. But neither men nor women are qualified to determine on thier own whether the risks are actual or imagined. If a board of qualified physicians say that a pregnancy represents a genuine risk, then, while it wold be a tragedy, termination would be justified in my opinion.

 

[palerider]

It is clearly a appeal to emotion subterfuge. The fact remains. I'll agree it is life, it's human in that it contains the dna which gives it potentiality. However as recognized by Roe vs. Wade, the potentiality does not imbue rights. If the cells never developed beyond a cluster of cells perhaps 100 in total, no one would consider it a "death" as this as this is not recognizable as personage by anyone, law or personal consideration in all, they'd simply see it as a pregnancy that didn't develop.

If you were to die unbeknownst to anyone. In a jungle for example. Would the fact that no one knew you had died mean that you were not a human being? Do you relly believe that in order to be a human being, someone must recognize your death and be emotional in some way?

As I have said, when roe was decided, it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not human beings. That they represented potential human beings. Technology, however has gone way past those days. It is no longer possible to argue with any crediblity at all that unborns are not human beings. They are potential judges, doctors, baseball players, or telephone operators but not potential human beings. I have challenged you to provide any credible evidence that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being and, pardon me if I am wrong, but you haven't delivered.

The muxxing of words and literary acrobatics by the anti-abortion faculty is a broad ranging front. Innocent fetus, PROLIFE, feticide, these are all appeals to emotion which are simply not valid arguments.

Innocent is not an argument. Innocent is an adjective. Are you also of the opinion that if you are arguing for a group that is being denied their most basic human right, that it is inappropriate to attempt to garner sympathy for them so long as you can do it in an entirely honest maner?

As pointed out before there is no guilt or innocence in a fetus.

And yet, you will argue that their life should be forfiet if a crime is committed such as rape or incest and our constitution clearly states that no one is to be made to forfiet his life without the due process of the law. Due process is all about innocence and guilt.

You say pale, that you are only appealing to science, but science has not changed.

Nope. I have never said any such thing. I have said that my argument is grounded in science and the law. Personally, I believe that if you are arguing for a group who is being denied their basic human rights, that it is not only appropriate to attempt to garner sympathy for them in your argument, but it is your obligation.

The fact of what unborns are has not changed, but science has changed our knowledge and understanding of what they are.

No one is denying that a fetus is "living" but it is not a human being, your argument that a newborn is not a "full fledged human being" is lacking and trying to compare apples and oranges.

You say that, but can you prove it in any way. I keep asking for some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever something besides a human being but no evidence ever appears. I can certainly provide credible, peer reviewed science that states that they are human beings.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990;

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

That the “offspring of human parents cannot reasonably be considered to be [something] other than a human being” was also recognized by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1325 (Mass. 1984).

These are not wiki articles. They are from medical textbooks that have been used in practically every language in which medicine is taught and medical journals and a court decision just for fun. Now. You claim that unborns are not human beings from the time they are concieved. Kindly provide some credible proof of that claim or conceede the point like an adult.

I don't see an egg as a chicken (fertilized or otherwise) but I do see chicks as chickens although they're not fully developed.

Then that is your failinig, not the chicken's. The fact that you are unable to wrap your mind around the facts of developmental biology is completely irrelavent to the facts of developmental biology. I suppose you don't realize that there is an oak tree inside of an acorn either. If you willingly admit that you don't grasp the biology, then I would submit that you really aren't qualified to engage in this discussion as you are at a gross disadvantage.

 

[dahermit]

easy for you to say

Originally Posted by dahermit
Diabetes, stroke, varicose veins, dropped uterus, post partum depression, suicide, death, etc., etc., oh, and involutional melancholia if they live long enough.

As I have said. If her life or long term health is at risk, she has the right to defend herself. But neither men nor women are qualified to determine on their own whether the risks are actual or imagined. If a board of qualified physicians say that a pregnancy represents a genuine risk, then, while it wold be a tragedy, termination would be justified in my opinion.

Most of he maladies mentioned in my post only appear after birth. none of the risks are imagined. All women are at risk. If one waits for the symptoms to appear after birth, of course it is too late. I think women are smart enough to decide if they wish to assume that risk.

A board that has been purposely populated by Catholic and/or other anti-abortion doctors will surely make the correct decision...right?
Politics are infused into everything. Oh, I forgot hemorrhoids. If you had to pass a 10 lb. bowling ball you would know about hemorrhoids.