How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[joeybaggz]

I have little interest in judging you.

I would have no concern if you did.

It is my position that in a secular society, the free will of individual citizens is more important than the legislative expression of religious ideas.

So, isn’t it a religious idea that killing another human being, robbing him/her of their possessions, slandering their good name, abandoning other to die, acting in any number of hazardous ways is wrong and laws need to be enacted against such actions. Your position is built on quicksand because virtually all western law finds its roots in religious law such as the Ten Commandments. I believe in the free will of the citizens too. And it is the free will of the pro life side of the street that I wish to see successful.

I think it was you in an earlier post that said abortion is never going to be completely abolished in the west. I agree, not that I wouldn’t like to see it done, but I think the vast majority of society believes in the right of the rape and incest victim to address their situation as they see fit. I might even tend to agree.

It is interesting that you “libertarians” never seem to address the concept of adoption as a viable, legal, and satisfactory way of coming to a positive end of a negative situation. When you start to do so, maybe you will get some positive engagement from “the other side.”

 

[benjamin1973]

Nobody is impinging on your right to have a baby if you are lucky enough to become pregnant. You are basically saying “You are impinging on my right to tell other people what they have to do.”
I didn’t say anything about that.
I don’t identify as a libertarian. I’m responding to the OP, which is about overturning a woman’s right to decide what she will or won’t do with her body.

 

[ProVobis]

Won’t happen if even one state funds abortions. Illinois has had a fourfold increase in the number of abortions since its Republican governor signed an abortion funding bill. I think more than just an overturn of Roe vs Wade needs to be made.

 

[anon65111186]

Right, there has to be grassroots awareness and action done against abortion in this country, at all levels, city, state, federal.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Quickly, as soon as possible, not one more child aborted in this country.

I’m not a proponent of abortion, but I think we have to face the fact that it’s always been around and always will be around. If some people cannot get a legal abortion, they will obtain an illegal one. Sad, but true.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Your free will to impose on me your judgment that pro life is on the wrong side of modern society’s headlong rush to choose who will live and who will die? Is that the free will you are talking about?

benjamin1973:

It doesn’t seem to me he cares if no one had an abortion, only that people have the right to follow their conscience, and in the case of the Orthodox Jews, their religion. RCs would not like their beliefs dictated to them by Jews; what gives anyone the right to dictate religious and moral beliefs to Jews?

I, myself, would not have an abortion or aid another in obtaining one, but looking at it unemotionally, the US was founded on freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

 

[anon65111186]

I’m not a proponent of abortion, but I think we have to face the fact that it’s always been around and always will be around. If some people cannot get a legal abortion, they will obtain an illegal one. Sad, but true.

Then something has to be done to prevent even illegal abortions too.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Then something has to be done to prevent even illegal abortions too.

Realistically, that will never happen. Crime has always existed and always will exist.

 

[ConstantLearner]

If the Hindus have cherished beliefs, can they impose them on you? Can American Muslims declare that women not covering their heads is likely to condemn them to Hell, and therefore demand that all women should have to follow their beliefs?

I’ve been trying to make that point for days now. I do not believe in reincarnation, and I do not cover my head, and I am very grateful no Hindu or Muslim has tried to force me to do so. I am also glad I can leave my home unaccompanied by a man. I worked for a short time in Saudi Arabia and was not allowed to do so.

 

[anon65111186]

Realistically, that will never happen. Crime has always existed and always will exist.

So we shouldn’t try and prevent it?

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, whether it’s legal or not.

 

[ConstantLearner]

So we shouldn’t try and prevent it?

People should always try to prevent crime, but abortion is not now a crime. However, people in this country are free to voice their beliefs and attempt to sway others. That is your right. It isn’t anyone’s right to try to force someone to refrain from a lawful act, though. We don’t live in a theocracy.

Believe me, I have feelings for the unborn, but when debating a legal matter, emotions cannot be a part of the decision. I think Casey Anthony should be in prison for life, but the law says otherwise. This is the country we live in.

 

[anon65111186]

People should always try to prevent crime

Okay I agree with that, but it’s still a sin, whether it’s a legal crime or not.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Okay I agree with that, but it’s still a sin, whether it’s a legal crime or not.

In many religions, yes, it is sinful. Many non-religious persons consider it morally wrong. But this is a discussion of the legalities - I think - and sin doesn’t enter into the equation. As I said, the US is not a theocracy.

And the SC does not make law; it interprets law. It will have to wait until it is presented with an appropriate case before issuing a decision.

 

[Joe_5859]

A human being walks around, talks, and has social relationships.

Newborn babies don’t walk around, talk, or have social relationships. It’s still not okay to kill them.

Similarly, people with disabilities often experience severe deficiencies in their capacities in these areas. Are they not quite fully human then?

If you want to allow the woman the liberty to control what happens in her body, then you have to allow her the free will to make her own decisions.

This presupposes that the women’s own body is the only one present, which contradicts basic science. There are two distinct bodies here. And the woman is making the decision for one that cannot voice their opinion. Should not the unborn be allowed to make their own decision?

This pro-choice argument kind of encapsulates the great divide between both sides. No one is talking about controlling women’s bodies. We are talking about not giving a woman the right to kill another person’s body.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up souls and religion. This isn’t a religious issue—unless you think laws against killing people are somehow exclusively religious.

 

[Joe_5859]

If some people cannot get a legal abortion, they will obtain an illegal one. Sad, but true.

I see this argument a lot, but it doesn’t jive with the evidence. When something is illegal, it acts as a deterrent for a good number of reasonable people.

Will some people still pursue an abortion via illegal means if it were illegal? Sure. Will all or most people do so? No.

That’s why we see a huge increase in the number of people using marijuana in states where it has been legalized. A good number of people do look to follow the law. And if something is illegal, they won’t do it if only because they don’t want to get in trouble or because they cannot find access to it.

But even so, how many people may hypothetically break a law is not the first consideration in whether or not to have the law. We have laws to protect the innocent. We have laws against killing innocent people. And yet, those laws do not extend to the unborn. Ultimately, the only reason is that many people don’t really believe the unborn are human. They seem more “hypothetical” because we don’t see their faces or hear their voices. They don’t seem real to us.

But they are real. They are real human beings. They have their own unique genetic makeup. And yet, simply because they are invisible to our senses, we can sit here on internet forums and causally talk about it as though it’s no big deal whether or not it’s illegal. Meanwhile, they are getting torn apart and otherwise brutally killed.

 

[benjamin1973]

benjamin1973:

A human being walks around, talks, and has social relationships.

Newborn babies don’t walk around, talk, or have social relationships. It’s still not okay to kill them.

Similarly, people with disabilities often experience severe deficiencies in their capacities in these areas. Are they not quite fully human then?

Right. For example, people in a coma, and for the same reason: since they do not have sufficient brain function to sustain conscious sensation, they are essentially biological machines.

Catholics have no problem pulling the plug, right? Why? That grandfather lying there in the hospital bed has his own unique DNA. There’s the potential, if you hang on for medical research to catch up, that a cure for his advanced Alzheimer’s or whatever to be cured and for him to regain basic functioning again, right?

If you want to allow the woman the liberty to control what happens in her body, then you have to allow her the free will to make her own decisions.

This presupposes that the women’s own body is the only one present, which contradicts basic science. There are two distinct bodies here. And the woman is making the decision for one that cannot voice their opinion. Should not the unborn be allowed to make their own decision?

This pro-choice argument kind of encapsulates the great divide between both sides. No one is talking about controlling women’s bodies. We are talking about not giving a woman the right to kill another person’s body.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up souls and religion. This isn’t a religious issue—unless you think laws against killing people are somehow exclusively religious.

Sure it’s a religious issue. On what basis will you determine whether a group of cells must or doesn’t need to be sustained. The secular view is that a fertilized egg has no feelings, no memories, no real life value. So on what basis will a secular woman be forced to carry a fertilized egg to term? Because you think God has infused it with a soul at the moment of conception. Well. . . that’s a religious idea, isn’t it?

 

[benjamin1973]

But they are real. They are real human beings. They have their own unique genetic makeup. And yet, simply because they are invisible to our senses, we can sit here on internet forums and causally talk about it as though it’s no big deal whether or not it’s illegal. Meanwhile, they are getting torn apart and otherwise brutally killed.

If unique DNA is sufficient to establish humanity, then I’d better dig up my grandfather. His cells also have unique DNA. With modern science, by refusing to do that, I’m refusing to allow the creation of a potential living human being. And in your view, not acting to allow a potential human being to exist is murder, right?

Obviously, I’m not going to do that; and I’m pretty sure that even you wouldn’t demand that I do so. A human being is a human being. “Being” means existing as a thinking, feeling agent; we do not normally talk about rock beings or river beings. That’s why fertilized eggs are not human beings. You can call a fertilized human egg as opposed to a bovine one. You can say it has the potential, with a willful decision on the mother’s part, to BECOME a human being. But until it develops a nervous system, it’s less conscious than a cow or even a worm, and has no place among the sentient agents which we value as human beings.

If you’ve studied pregnancy, you’ll know that very many fertilizations do not “take.” An egg is fertilized, but is flushed out anyway. Are we now going to legislate this as child neglect? Should a woman go to a doctor every day to make sure all these precious little souls aren’t lost, and be charged with neglect causing death if she does not?

No. That would be silly. The value of a fertilized egg is NOT equivalent to the value of an actual sentient infant. One is conscious, and is beginning its path of learning about the world it now finds itself in. One is on its way to becoming that, but has not yet achieved that state. They are different.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I wouldn’t exactly have said it this way, but (for once) I think we agree. The mere fact the abortion issue is so closely linked to certain religious beliefs makes it that much more difficult for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

 

[ConstantLearner]

But they are real. They are real human beings. They have their own unique genetic makeup. And yet, simply because they are invisible to our senses, we can sit here on internet forums and causally talk about it as though it’s no big deal whether or not it’s illegal. Meanwhile, they are getting torn apart and otherwise brutally killed.

I, myself, do not believe anyone should have an abortion. But what I think and feel, what all of us think and feel, has no bearing on the SC and how it votes. (At the state level, yes, but at the SC, no.)

I definitely believe an embryo is a human being. Does it have an immortal soul at the time of fertilization? I don’t know, but I don’t think that matters. It’s still a living human being.

The former Republican appointed SC, who made abortion legal in the US, did not do so based on the premise that an embryo is a human being. They did so based on the Fourth Amendment and stated that a woman’s right to privacy extends to her ability to obtain an abortion. A current court would have to find that no woman enjoyed such a right.

And the SC can’t simply “overturn” Roe v. Wade. They do not make law. A relevant case would have to be presented to them. Then we would have to wait until they interpret the law. Nothing is going to happen quickly with this matter.