How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[kkerwin1]

Roe should be overturned as soon as possible. Lives literally hang in the balance.

Why would one wait?

@Arkansan and @Vico:

My concern is this: even if we win the battle in the short term, I am afraid that without slowly chipping away at abortion and also educating our children especially in public schools why abortion is immoral even using secular premises, that we will lose the war in the long term.

Some in this thread have suggested that the Court will not immediately reverse itself upon regaining a liberal majority. I believe that this represents naivete. Pro-Choice advocates are just as passionate about their position as Pro-Life advocates. All it takes to prompt a SCOTUS review of the issue is for a single State to pass a law for or against abortion when their respective majority is in power.

Another pointed out that justices don’t just vote with their party. That’s not exactly true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e37f66848bb_story.html?utm_term=.1a41da1747e2

My question, then, boils down to this: is it morally permissable to prioritize saving more lives in the long term, over fewer lives in the short term?

 

[Bon_Croix]

To truly make abortion a criminal act, it will take a constitutional amendment.

It is too engrained, and Roe v. Wade has had such a contrary to truth greying of the minds of Americans that to overturn it via incremental decisions won’t have any near term effects on society’s conscience.

YOur question sounds like judicial activism which I don’t care of. But being that Roe v. Wade was based on judicial activism on the part of those who brought it to the court, maybe it is warranted.

 

[Vonsalza]

To be sure, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that abortion does not involve killing another being.

The main question (for me) is “When does the fetus obtain ‘person-hood’ and all the legal protections entitled therein?”

And, as might disappoint you, the answer is purely arbitrary and forever will be. Else we’d need to have funerals and issue government paper every time a pregnancy self-terminated because we’d also have to require every woman with a skipped period to submit to evaluation for pregnancy in order to guarantee the rights of the new person.

Arbitrary.

And of greater worth, should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy for 9 months she doesn’t want?
I’m sure not going to force her to. She’s a free-moral-agent just like I am…

 

[EvangelistVictor]

Once Abortion gets overturned, we can then focus on getting guns off the streets. Too many crazies have access to guns now legally.

 

[Vico]

…
My question, then, boils down to this: is it morally permissable to prioritize saving more lives in the long term, over fewer lives in the short term?

First, you act without knowing the future. Second, for lawmakers to not oppose what is immoral in the civil law is not a morally neutral omission.

The four criteria of PDE are:

• The action itself is not bad or evil; it needs to be either morally good or morally neutral.
• The person intends the good effect to happen but does not intend the bad effect to happen; he/she merely allows or has knowledge that the bad effect will happen.
• The good effect cannot be achieved through the completion of the bad effect; in other words, the good effect must come about as a result of the action itself and not as a result of the bad effect.
• The amount of good that is gained from the good effect must be able to compensate for the harm from the bad effect.

 

[Kris34]

Yes. They need to hear a relevant case on the matter. After that and if suddenly a woman doesn’t have a right to be “private in getting an abortion” whatever laws restricting or allowing it in each state and territory will go into effect. Then it will be 50 states plus DC and all territories taking the matter up themselves. Abortion is illegal with few exceptions in South Korea suffering from a population emplosion and statistics suggest 300,000 a year legally happening anyway. We will always need to pray for an end to abortion. With the abortion pill it may be impossible to really stop it even if it’s illegal. In addition to prayer it would be wise to not let your own self be the reason a woman would think to have an abortion. Let’s treat women who are pregnant kindly no matter how they got pregnant. No more sending women off to have the baby in secret only to be separated by an adoption she doesn’t want. Parent with the woman you got pregnant even if a marital relationship is out of the question. Treat coworkers with kids with kindness.

 

[Kris34]

An unknown pregnancy failing and a natural miscarriage are different from an intentional abortion. There is nothing immoral and should be nothing illegal about a miscarriage. That does not change the personhood of the baby. We don’t do an autopsy on every born person who dies to make sure it wasn’t hastened along.

If there were a way to remove a baby before birth and place the baby in an artificial womb would you be okay with abortion being illegal? After all the baby would no longer need the mother’s body.

If there were found a homosexual gene the switch to prolife may go from 50/50 to 60/40. Parents might seek testing and like with other forms of prenatal testing sadly might lead to abortion.

Women 95% of the time have an abortion cause they don’t want to be pregnant. It’s not about not being to raise the baby or there not being people able to raise the baby. The women in a late term would rather the baby be born early if their life is on the line. Some are concerned about a medical issue of the child. But all humans will have a medical issue at some point in life if they live long enough. Some is simply fear after the radiation leak in Japan or the Chernobyl disaster causing many women even countries away to seek an abortion in fear. Over 60% of women getting a legal abortion today do so because a parent or significant other want them too. Most women who get abortions were told “congrats you are pregnant” by their doctors. Not you are pregnant and I advise you to get an abortion. It’s only after the woman says she wants one it’s discussed or scheduled.

 

[Vonsalza]

An unknown pregnancy failing and a natural miscarriage are different from an intentional abortion.

Absolutely. I was referring to his arguments about “personhood”.

If there were a way to remove a baby before birth and place the baby in an artificial womb would you be okay with abortion being illegal? After all the baby would no longer need the mother’s body.

What if, what if, what if…

Women 95% of the time have an abortion cause they don’t want to be pregnant. It’s not about not being to raise the baby or there not being people able to raise the baby…

They don’t want their pre-child life to end. I’d argue you’re not fully adult, fully married until you hold the responsibility of a child. They want to delay that end/beginning.

Over 60% of women getting a legal abortion today do so because a parent or significant other want them too.

Reference? I don’t buy it.

Women get abortions, largely, because they don’t want children. It is immoral. But I’m unsure if it should be illegal.

 

[kkerwin1]

To be sure, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that abortion does not involve killing another being.

The main question (for me) is “When does the fetus obtain ‘person-hood’ and all the legal protections entitled therein?”

And, as might disappoint you, the answer is purely arbitrary and forever will be. Else we’d need to have funerals and issue government paper every time a pregnancy self-terminated because we’d also have to require every woman with a skipped period to submit to evaluation for pregnancy in order to guarantee the rights of the new person.

Arbitrary.

And of greater worth, should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy for 9 months she doesn’t want?
I’m sure not going to force her to. She’s a free-moral-agent just like I am…

1. Were there a distinction between a human being who is a “person” and one who is not a person, I would argue that the burden of proof in demonstrating that distinction beyond reasonable doubt would lie with a pro-choice advocate.
2. Further, the pro-choice advocate would have to prove that this distinction applies in the particular case of the unborn child.
3. You note that the point in time when such personhood is developed is arbitrary. I wholeheartedly agree. Is it not simpler then to conclude that this distinction does not exist, or that if the distinction exists that in practice is a moot point, as such personhood is attained upon the conception of the human life?

 

[thistle]

Presumably the number of abortions will decrease significantly if its outlawed.

You are living in fantasyland if you really think that!!

Added to that presumably any and all aiding and abetting procurement of an abortion would be subject to the same law.

 

[Kris34]

I head it on catholic radio that the women surveyed said they were there because of a parent or significant other.

The entire Roe V Wade decision was ruled because a woman had a right to keep from her spouse and others she got pregnant. It’s not because a doctor said the test shows you are pregnant I advise you to have an abortion. That decision made between a woman a doctor. It’s actually not. Many don’t even meet a doctor about the topic until after a different medical office staff member talk with them and the actual doctor does the abortion. I don’t know how can doubt significant others being why a woman might be at a clinic. If she has a baby he is on the hook for 25% of his income coming to he for 18 years or longer if the child attends college.

I would say you can be fully adult and fully responsible before children. Look to our servicemen and women and our clergy.

Should immoral things be illegal?

 

[Augustinian]

Once Abortion gets overturned, we can then focus on getting guns off the streets. Too many crazies have access to guns now legally.

How many crazies have guns currently, and how would you propose getting those guns off the streets without infringing on the rights of other, sane, law abiding people to be able to defend themselves?

In spite of all of the fuss about mass shootings in schools and offices and people going postal, the vast majority of shooting victims are shot by sane criminals.

 

[brishen]

I would venture to suggest that killing a human-- living and breathing on it’s on is different for some (like every single Rabbi, ever) than those that believe “person-hood” begins at conception. And no, I don’t believe any soul Gd wants to be born, no matter the generation, will be lost. In times of confusion, I naturally default to Jewish law, that is my choice and I don’t try to convince others. As for your last question, why do you ask? I said I am personally opposed to abortion, that is my choice, I don’t force it on others, and again, as a Jew (Catholic) I have no problem with this mindset, for reasons I’ve made abundantly clear. People that are pro-choice are not looking to kill more…what is your point? People have always had abortions and they always will, I wish to maintain they remain safe and the mother’s best interests and health kept in mind. It’s a slippery slope to Saudi Arabia and I’m not along for the ride.
My question for you is, what are you doing to help women that might feel they have no choice but an abortion? Normally I wouldn’t ask but apparently you feel very comfortable with me.

 

[ProVobis]

What’s sad is that in Illinois a Republican governor signed into law a Medicaid-funded abortion bill. There has been a fourfold increase in the number of abortions in the first six months of this year. The interesting part, however, is that the number of abortions committed by Illinois women has been decreasing but the number of out-of-staters has led to the substantial increase in the total number.

I’m not sure what’s the best way to proceed with overturning Roe vs Wade. At least now Federally funded abortions are illegal.

 

[anon10271182]

Which will mean no change in the pro-abortion People’s Republic of California.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Unfortunately, from a constitutional law point of view, completely overturning Roe v. Wade immediately would throw a wrench in the constitutionality of many of the decisions which have since been made. Roe v. Wade was based on something which was explained to me by my Constitutional Law professor as Shadows of the Constitution. These are things which are not explicitly or implicitly stated in the constitution, but derive from things which are implied. The right to privacy outside of simple search and seizure is one of these. To completely throw out Roe v. Wade would damage the foundation of many decisions which have since been made using these Shadows of the Constitution. Now, if the abortion argument would be approached from the direction of human personhood and abortion was struck down, then Roe v. Wade would still be precedent on privacy, but abortion would also be illegal. This would get around the damage a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade would make on our current constitutional law outside of the abortion argument.

 

[kkerwin1]

Unfortunately, from a constitutional law point of view, completely overturning Roe v. Wade immediately would throw a wrench in the constitutionality of many of the decisions which have since been made. Roe v. Wade was based on something which was explained to me by my Constitutional Law professor as Shadows of the Constitution. These are things which are not explicitly or implicitly stated in the constitution, but derive from things which are implied. The right to privacy outside of simple search and seizure is one of these. To completely throw out Roe v. Wade would damage the foundation of many decisions which have since been made using these Shadows of the Constitution. Now, if the abortion argument would be approached from the direction of human personhood and abortion was struck down, then Roe v. Wade would still be precedent on privacy, but abortion would also be illegal. This would get around the damage a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade would make on our current constitutional law outside of the abortion argument.

Thank you for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[kkerwin1]

What’s sad is that in Illinois a Republican governor signed into law a Medicaid-funded abortion bill. There has been a fourfold increase in the number of abortions in the first six months of this year.

Yeah, Rauner sucks for a lot of reasons. I’m a state worker in Illinois.

 

[Kris34]

Since the state of Illinois is years behind paying its bills to doctor’s there are years to fix it. The Democrats control the legislature.

 

[Kris34]

In Judaism the mothers life outweighs the baby. So if the mom is going to die if she stays pregnant the baby is sacrificed. Different penalties if a pregnant woman injured or a baby killed. In Catholicism both mother and baby are equal. There are many Jewish people hooked up to respirators not “living and breathing on their own”. But you should do anything that could preserve life if I understand jewish law. How is the method of breathing via umbilical cord in utero verses incubation in a bed connected to a machine different? Do you see how Catholics see this issue? Interestingly in Catholicism we are not required to do anything extraordinary to sustain life. Judaism actually isn’t for abortion in any situation, there must be a grave reason if I understand what I have read in the matter.