How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[Frankenfurter]

I was simply pointing out the amorality in the notion that you should only save someone being murdered IF you also take on all of their future care. That was a point you were making. That is an amoral position and an inherently political one.

I do realize the counter point you make, namely that in the case of the unborn, it doesn’t count since they are not people yet and therefore the amorality doesn’t matter.

So in your view, in the case of the unborn, since they are not people yet, we can complain if someone tries to prevent them from being murdered if that person does not also provide for the resources needed in the future to sustain that baby. Right?

But in the case of a woman, we can try to save her from being murdered, even though we don’t plan on providing for her future support.

But clearly there is no ‘magic moment’ when this baby switches from being someone who can be murdered without lifetime resources (according to your logic), to someone who must be saved even without lifetime resources (the grown woman).

Do you really think that life is like that, where things change abruptly? Suddenly and instantaneously one goes from having no right to life to suddenly having it. Obviously that is not the case. Life evolves, emerges and changes slowly it is not discrete,

We can find only one discrete point and that is conception.

 

[benjamin1973]

That’s a pretty strange twist. By asking me not to murder anyone, you aren’t actually imposing a new bonded relationship on me. It’s not going to cost me all of my life, and cause me to sacrifice my ambitions or hopes of prepare adequately for a family, not to kill someone on the street.

I don’t think anyone thinks there is a “magic moment” when a fetus becomes a full-fledged person, except perhaps for those who believe it happens at conception, at which point God inserts a soul into the organic material.

For the secular, it’s a gradual change from clearly just organic matter, to clearly an existent human being. That’s why most consider something like the morning-after pill to be morally fine, and a 3rd-term abortion to be a very grave moral problem.

I can look at a rainbow, and not be able to say for sure where red gives way to yellow. But that doesn’t mean I can’t identify a part of the range which is unambiguous.

 

[FiveLinden]

Whatever happens, the US is going to have an abortion law that does not correspond with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Direct abortion will be permitted to save the mother’s life, for fetal abnormality, for apparent brain death in the fetus, for serious damage to mental health, at very early stages by medical abortion (taking a pill) and fairly freely during later stages. There are few if any non-Catholics who believe the full Catholic position should be reflected in law and very few Catholics also I think. SO despite all the debate and the investment of hundreds of millions in communication, people are not being won to the Catholic position. The Catholic position is not ‘fewer abortions as a result of tougher laws’ it is ‘no legal direct abortions as a result of complete prohibition’.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Where did that idea come from. There are any number of organizations funded by Catholics that will help a disadvantaged mother to be to preserve the life of her child. (i.e. Project Rachel et al.) What is your source for that claim.

The key words there are: “to preserve the life of her child.” While I want to see abortion end, those who oppose it have to do more. What about after her child is born? Are Catholics willing to take a single mother and her child into their home until she receives education, etc., and can be self-supporting? They should be because that is the true meaning of pro-life.

 

[ConstantLearner]

It bothers me that “pro-life” ends at birth. Are we to force a teen in a high-crime, drug-infested area to bring a baby into the world, and then not provide her a means to get to a safer environment? Are we going to provide her with daycare services so she can carry on her education and build a quality life both for her and the baby she’s been forced to have?

That bothers me, too. Greatly. And to me, a pro-life stance that ends at birth isn’t pro-life at all. The baby just born will need many things through the years until he or she can be self-supporting. Who’s going to provide those things if his or her mother cannot?

 

[Augustinian]

Whatever happens, the US is going to have an abortion law that does not correspond with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

That may well be true, but that doesn’t mean that implementing heavy duty restrictions and regulations on the Abortion Trade isn’t a good idea.

 

[Augustinian]

The baby just born will need many things through the years until he or she can be self-supporting. Who’s going to provide those things if his or her mother cannot?

Here in America, we have an extensive social safety net, and innumerable numbers of different public assistance programs available for destitute individuals.

In addition to the above mentioned government aid, we also a lot of private, faith based outfits helping out the poor…

 

[benjamin1973]

It’s clearly not nearly enough. America has very high crime and drug rates, and these are clearly due to poverty.

 

[ConstantLearner]

States in western Europe and elsewhere with humongous government paid for social services have abortion rates as high as, if not higher than those of the United States.

That is true. I think many women have abortions because they do not want to be pregnant. Pregnancy interferes with their lifestyle. If the US should someday outlaw abortion, many women will still have them. They will go to “backstreet” abortionists, perform the abortion themselves, or go to another country. I think the key to stopping abortion is dependent on instilling in everyone a great respect for life. But this has to begin early, and I think a lot of parents are deficient in this area of childrearing. Mine were not, hence, I grew up respecting all life.

I am not in favor of abortion, but the US was founded, in part, on a separation of church and state and religious freedom for all. Even though I am against abortion, I have to question whether it should be outlawed in the US. Doing so would impinge on the religious freedom of Orthodox Jews, clearly unconstitutional. At the same time, the Constitution guarantees "“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all persons. So, the SC must determine when a fetus reaches personhood, legally.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Here in America, we have an extensive social safety net, and innumerable numbers of different public assistance programs available for destitute individuals.

Section eight housing, food stamps, etc? That’s not a decent quality of life and not really a “safety net.” As one poster has already stated, clearly, this is not enough. We aren’t even doing enough to help the vast middle class.

 

[Yeoman]

I haven’t read all the replies yet, so chances are good that somebody else has responded along the lines I’m about to and therefore my answers is redundant. My apologies in advance.

Anyhow, two things:

1. The title is of this entry doesn’t quite match the text, but keep in mind “We” won’t be overturning Roe at all, but the Supreme Court might. While most devout Catholics certainly hope that the holding keeping Abortion a supposed “right” will go, a view held by a lot of non Catholics as well, we probably shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves and simply assume that it’s going to go out overnight.
2. It’s perfectly possible, but often missed, that its perfectly possible to uphold Roe v. Wade and at the same time find that the part of it applying to abortion fails, which the Supreme Court might very well do. Indeed, I think that’s the most likely outcome. Roe v. Wade was not an up or down vote on abortion and indeed the decision implicitly recognizes a right to life on the part of the unborn, and then bizarrely tries to determine judicially when you are enough of a person to have that right, going with a weird approach to viability to get there. A current court could very well uphold the law in Roe nearly completely but at the same time find that advancing science had made the start of viability so uncertain that it’s now possible to imagine it so early that no abortion would ever fit the original Roe model

Of course, any number of other approaches resulting in a return of abortion to the states is also imaginable.

And that is of course what the result would be, unless we imagine a really wild result (which won’t occur) which took the same approach that liberal jurist have been taking to the law in which case the “conservatives”, who haven’t taken the same approach, declared life a natural and absolute right, which would simply outlaw abortion on a constitutional basis. I’d be in favor of that, but that won’t occur.

My two cents anyhow.

 

[ConstantLearner]

And that is of course what the result would be, unless we imagine a really wild result (which won’t occur) which took the same approach that liberal jurist have been taking to the law in which case the “conservatives”, who haven’t taken the same approach, declared life a natural and absolute right, which would simply outlaw abortion on a constitutional basis. I’d be in favor of that, but that won’t occur.

No, I don’t think that would occur since there is wide disagreement on when “life” as an independent person, exists. The SC would have to decide when a fetus attains personhood and all the rights associated with that.

But all of this is putting the cart before the horse. Brett Kavanaugh faces a long, uphill battle in confirmation. In the meantime, the November elections could come and go, and who knows what will happen then? Who really knows how Kavanaugh would vote should he be confirmed and should a case involving Roe v. Wade be heard by the SC? People think they know, but no one really does. It was a Republican SC that made abortion legal.

A 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee, Byron White, voted against Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade Approved By Republican Appointees

For more than 50 years of my adult life, I have been an Evangelical Christian. My relationship with the Lord has guided my life. Despite my heartfelt and often-stated objections

heraldcourier.com

 

[Augustinian]

A 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democrat appointee, Byron White, voted against Roe v. Wade

Of course, that was more than 45 years ago, and in the early 1970’s, there were a lot of pro-life Democrats.

Ted Kennedy was pro-life for a season, so was Jesse Jackson. A lot of lesser lights as well, Billy Coyne represented Pittsburgh in Congress for many years. Started off as pro-life and moved to the anti-life position over time.

Similarly for the Republicans. Ronald Reagan signed the legalization of abortion bill as governor, and later came over the pro-life position.

 

[Joe_5859]

Calling people “abortion nuts” is not beginning your post “with all due respect.” If you want to respectfully disagree, use respectful language, please.

If a law is unjust, it needs to be overturned no matter when it was passed. Slavery was written into our nation’s very Constitution. But that was unjust, and needed to be changed, even though it had been ruled on “decades ago.”

Might I ask, why are you okay with abortion in the first trimester, but not later? Where do you draw the line? When do the unborn’s human right’s begin? When does it change from being “removal of a clump of cells” to “killing a baby”?

 

[Yeoman]

Brett Kavanaugh faces a long, uphill battle in confirmation.

I doubt that. While the GOP has a bare majority, it has a majority and McConnell is pretty effective on such things. The Democrats will try to delay it, but they acted as heavy handed as Feinstein did during Barrett’s district court nomination, that will backfire.

What we don’t really know is how Kavanaugh will vote. I don’t think we can look to the 73 court for much guidance, as both political and judicial conservatism and liberalism have changed quite a bit since then.

 

[Augustinian]

I doubt that. While the GOP has a bare majority, it has a majority and McConnell is pretty effective on such things.

Beyond that, there are Democrats who are very likely to vote for Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Sen. Manchin in WV didn’t pledge his vote, but basically told Schumer that he was going to make up his own mind.

Others like Donnally of Indiana, Heitkamp of North Dakota voted for Gorsuch before and face electoral challenges this fall in red states.

This is why President Trump is doing this now, before the election, put some pressure on these ladies and gentlemen to reflect their constituencies.

 

[ProVobis]

True and it was affirmed in 1992 by a 9-0 Republican appointed SCOTUS.

 

[ProVobis]

That could go either way. I am reminded of the Clarence Thomas confirmation where 11 Democrats voted to confirm him. One of them, Dixon of Illinois, got defeated in the primaries.

 

[Yeoman]

True and it was affirmed in 1992 by a 9-0 Republican appointed SCOTUS.

We can’t really say a “Republican appointed SCOTUS”. The GOP would have to be in power a really long time in order for all of the judges to be Republican appointees, just as the opposite is also true. That’s by a margin of a single vote really matters. However, it’s been a GOP appointee, Kennedy, and our fellow co-religious, that has caused us to be frequently disappointed in recent years.

On that, a distinct difference between Democratic nominees and Republican ones in recent years is that Democratic appointees are philosophical liberals, or “progressives” if you prefer. Republican ones, by contrast, tend to be judicial conservatives, which is quite different. That’s why, at the end of the day, the liberal justices are okay with making law up to suit their views, while the conservative ones just tend to hold that things ought to go back to the voters in the states.

 

[ProVobis]

From 1968 through 1992, only Carter’s 4 years broke the string of Republican reign.

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.