How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kkerwin1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
From 1968 through 1992, only Carter’s 4 years broke the string of Republican reign.
Click to expand...
True, but Supreme Court justices serve so long, you also have to take into account from 1932 to 1952 and 1960 to 1968. I don’t know the answer offhand, but its unlikely that all the justices had been appointed by Republicans.
 
I’m pretty sure contraceptives have a lot to do with that.

I really think the Catholic position is much too tough here: don’t use condoms, don’t use the pill-- abstain, or have a baby whether you’re ready or not. To me, this places far too much moral burden on a young woman, especially if she’s unintelligent or uneducated, and lives in a culture where sex at a young age is the norm.

It’s easy for older, richer, mainly white Catholics to hold a high moral position. If my own daughter, who’s now in middle school, were pregnant, I could back her up-- take care of the baby while she continued school, possibly even raise it as my own. I’d be upset by her poor life decision, but overall the baby would find a warm and receptive household.

But in many cases, a forced pregnancy will involve a baby born into truly abject poverty, both financial and moral. It will be malnourished, surrounded by violence and drugs, and have a nearly 100% chance of involvement in a life of crime-- and another early pregnancy.

As a non-Catholic, I have to say that a very early-term abortion (like say a morning-after pill or a procedure within the first couple of months) seems infinitely preferable to this.
 
ProVobis said:
But regardless since 1975 or so national abortion rates have been dropping under both Democratic and Republican administrations. I’d like to think the Hyde Amendment had a lot to do with that. Going forward if states fund abortions, it should be of no surprise that national abortion rates will start climbing again. Have done so in Illinois.
Click to expand...
That’s quite true. Of course states may very well not fund it, but predicting what will occur is not easy in any fashion, assuming that the law changes, which sooner or later I think it will.
 
benjamin1973 said:
But in many cases, a forced pregnancy will involve a baby born into truly abject poverty, both financial and moral. It will be malnourished, surrounded by violence and drugs, and have a nearly 100% chance of involvement in a life of crime-- and another early pregnancy.
Click to expand...
FWIW violence and crime in the US, and indeed in the entire Western World, is now at an all time low. The old spectre of a life of violent crime for the child of a single mother is really not how things operate in the US today. That is not to say that a life of poverty is pleasant. . . but it is a life.
 
I was only going with the current trend of not funding of abortions. I’m guessing an average of $2000 per abortion, give or take for how far into the pregnancy. If anyone has estimates on how many abortions would be affected, I’m all ears.
 
Last edited:
Yeoman said:
I don’t know the answer offhand, but its unlikely that all the justices had been appointed by Republicans.
Click to expand...
In 1992, Byron White was still on the SCOTUS and he was a JFK appointee. The other 8 justices at the time were all Republican picks. Interestingly, White actually was on the dissenting side of both Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.

I don’t think that means much, though.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I don’t think that means much, though.
Click to expand...
I think it shows that one never really knows how justices are going to vote. We make assumptions, sure, but sometimes those assumptions are wrong, and justices do or don’t do what we thought.

Kavanaugh is said to “interpret the Constitution exactly as it is written.” What that means regarding abortion, I don’t know because the Constitution does not address abortion directly.

Since Justice Blackmun and the others who decided the “right to privacy” found in the Fourth Amendment allows a woman to have an abortion, I certainly am opposed to any state or federal funds being used for abortions.

For the record, I am morally opposed to abortion, however, I’m trying to look at the issue unemotionally and from a constitutional standpoint only. I am not, however, a constitutional scholar, by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know exactly, but once you are “born” you are a person in Judaism (hence the life support people), before that you are part of your Mother. I can see the difference between keeping someone on life support and a pregnancy that might harm the Mother.
 
You’re right.

Unlike Christian doctrine, which claims that life begins at conception, even the most stringent interpretations in halakha do not view the fetus as a “nefesh,” or “human being,” before birth. Historically, “the whole rabbinic tradition stayed away from that kind of language and never ascribed the value of full humanity for the fetus,” says Jeffrey Fox, a modern Orthodox rabbi who heads the Yeshivat Maharat in New York, which trains women to be halakhic and spiritual leaders. Rabbis, likewise, rarely compared abortion to murder, he adds.

According to the halakhic stages of childbirth, the fetus is considered “merely water” for the first forty days after conception, says Fox. Some interpretations recognize the fetus as human — with all the associated rights and responsibilities — as late as the third trimester; and in rare cases, when the fetus may fatally threaten the mother’s life, it can be removed up until the crowning phase of delivery, he says. While abortion is never permitted for frivolous or cosmetic purposes, Fox says, an abortion performed within the first forty days, is generally treated like a menstrual cycle, and, therefore, according to the laws of childbirth.

www.haaretz.com

Are abortions legal under Jewish law?

Judaism has a long tradition of 'a woman's right to chose,' allowing Israel to pass some of the most progressive abortion legislation in the world.
www.haaretz.com www.haaretz.com
 
It’s not a fast track. It usually takes three months from start to finish if the person is approved from the time of nomination. There is an election for the senate every two years. Roughly 1/3 of the senate is up for an election every two years. There will always be an election cycle in some state. Obama wanted to fill the last seat but they didn’t have the votes to put him in in his last 8 months before the presidential election. He thought Clinton would will anyway so it was dropped since she would put a liberal person in. He should have gone with someone very moderate. It was a conservative seat he would have filled. I think he should have filled it. I’m glad Trump filled it, February 2024 if someone leaves I wonder who will fill the seat?
 
Trump still needs every Republican to vote, since McCain will probably remain in Arizona, for Kavanaugh. Don’t know if they’ll all do that.

Kavanaugh is okay. He’s well qualified.
 
Last edited:
Senators are allowed to confirm a nominee even if the president who selected him or her is of a different party. It used to happen with huge support. One of Bush’s choices was odd and then he picked someone else, eventually get someone in.
 
Well, of course they can vote regardless of party, but I don’t think any Democrat will vote for Kavanaugh, hence, he needs every Republican vote.
 
The last Justice got 3 democrat votes.

Kennedy got 97, Souter 90, Thomas 52, Ginsberg 96, Breyer 87, Roberts 78, Alito 58, Sotomayor 68, Kagen 63, Gorsuch 54. Thomas was a hard confirmation with the Anita Hill hearings. Sometimes it took a second nomination but those in mostly got in no matter the composition of the senate. When the universe was sane.

Time will tell. And even in they don’t always vote like you’d expect. Roberts surprised people.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Well, of course they can vote regardless of party, but I don’t think any Democrat will vote for Kavanaugh, hence, he needs every Republican vote.
Click to expand...
I think he’ll get several Democrat votes. Democrats from red states that don’t want to alienate their constituents.
 
You do know that there are atheist groups that are pro life right? Good try though :roll_eyes: you are funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top