US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

 

Is that a criteria we want to use to determine candidacy for abortion ?

To the degree we can reasonably expect a fetus has developed enough to feel pain, and to what degree, I think that would be one criterion in weighing the rights we might choose to allow it.

If we still choose to abort it, surely that should still be considered as to how it is done.

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

To the degree we can reasonably expect a fetus has developed enough to feel pain, and to what degree, I think that would be one criterion in weighing the rights we might choose to allow it.

The rights you choose to allow it, has more to do with your opinion than pain suffered; unless you're a vegan...

[Genady]

Here is a different minority's view on the subject:

"limiting access to abortion is an imposition of governmental Christianity on us all."

"What we — a rabbi and a Washington state legislator — have presented here are Jewish texts showing why access to abortion services are a religious requirement for Jewish Americans."

Supreme Court’s Roe ruling would trample the religious freedom of every Jewish American (sfchronicle.com)

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The rights you choose to allow it, has more to do with your opinion than pain suffered; unless you're a vegan...

You're right of course Dim. It's certainly a lot easier if I don't, or refuse to, empathise with what I eat.

But I do hope and like to assume it has been treated as "humanely" as practical.

[MigL]

Female castration is a religious requirement in some parts of the world.
It does not become law when they immigrate to America.
As a matter of fact, this should have nothing to do with Religion.

Our laws are based on rights, and the only consideration for an abortion is the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother ( and possibly, father ).

We can all agree on the rights of the mother ( and possibly father, responsible for support after birth ); what is the sticking point are the rights of the fetus, and when exactly those rights are aquired, further complicated by the fact that medical science keeps that goalpost moving.
My nephew's partner had a severe medical condition that required her baby to be removed prematurely. She was barely two pounds and fit on one hand when born on Jan 2nd, but is now a beatiful, 7.5 pound, full-term baby girl.

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Female castration is a religious requirement in some parts of the world.

Really? That seems an extreme form of birth control. Wouldn't it be easier to castrate the males?

31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But I do hope and like to assume it has been treated as "humanely" as practical.

As we do for the unwanted foetus. (Of course, most of us would prefer health education and ready access to birth control information and material and adequate pre- and post-natal care for all infants, whether the biological parents are able to provide it or not... but welfare can't be choosers)

[J.C.MacSwell]

42 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

Of course, most of us would prefer health education and ready access to birth control information and material and adequate pre- and post-natal care for all infants, whether the biological parents are able to provide it or not... 

I certainly agree with that.

[Genady]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

Female castration is a religious requirement in some parts of the world.
It does not become law when they immigrate to America.
As a matter of fact, this should have nothing to do with Religion.

Our laws are based on rights, and the only consideration for an abortion is the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother ( and possibly, father ).

We can all agree on the rights of the mother ( and possibly father, responsible for support after birth ); what is the sticking point are the rights of the fetus, and when exactly those rights are aquired, further complicated by the fact that medical science keeps that goalpost moving.
My nephew's partner had a severe medical condition that required her baby to be removed prematurely. She was barely two pounds and fit on one hand when born on Jan 2nd, but is now a beatiful, 7.5 pound, full-term baby girl.

Well, perhaps the authors of that opinion piece, "a rabbi and a Washington state legislator" don't know this ^^^.

Anyway, I'm glad that when my partner needed it, many years ago, I lived in Israel, where this was not an issue.

[MigL]

49 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Female castration is a religious requirement in some parts of the world.

Really? That seems an extreme form of birth control. Wouldn't it be easier to castrate the males?

My bad.
I should have use the more accurate term, female genital mutilation,

Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia

but it still does not get to become law when its proponents immigrate to any civilized part of the world.

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

but it still does not get to become law when its proponents immigrate to any civilized part of the world.

Quite so. Along with hashish use and polygamy. But it seems only tangentially related to reproductive rights.

Circumcised [genitally mutilated] males, as well as females are both still able to procreate - the women, with more pain, but the lawmakers and prelates do not seem overly concerned with that aspect.

[MigL]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

But it seems only tangentially related to reproductive rights.

It was related to this

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Here is a different minority's view on the subject:

"limiting access to abortion is an imposition of governmental Christianity on us all."

"What we — a rabbi and a Washington state legislator — have presented here are Jewish texts showing why access to abortion services are a religious requirement for Jewish Americans."

Which tries to relate Religious beliefs to reproductive rights.

[Peterkin]

It doesn't matter who tries to relate which rule to what bogus other entity. Lawmakers respond to popular and political pressure, regardless of the motive behind that pressure, and Supreme Court Judges are literally above the law.  

[TheVat]

The pain sidebar seems to distract from the thread topic, which is about the law, and a reading of the 14th amendment that goes back half a century.  If our laws were really focused on mitigation of pain and suffering of sentient creatures, no matter their developmental level, then we would all be vegans with access to euthanasia booths in every neighborhood and we would demolish many of our prisons. 

Up to 24 weeks a fetus is not viable outside the womb and is legally considered an extension of the  mother's body.  Few favor third trimester abortion (I do not, either).  I am not aware of any counter to this viability standard that is not driven by conservative Christianity trying to impose its doctrines on the rest of us.  As @Genady pointed out, in some nations not controlled by Christian would-be theocrats, abortion is legal and safe and accessible to all who need it.  America was not founded as a theocracy, nor should it become one, so why would we derive laws from religious doctrines?

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

The pain sidebar seems to distract from the thread topic, which is about the law, and a reading of the 14th amendment that goes back half a century.  If our laws were really focused on mitigation of pain and suffering of sentient creatures, no matter their developmental level, then we would all be vegans with access to euthanasia booths in every neighborhood and we would demolish many of our prisons. 

Up to 24 weeks a fetus is not viable outside the womb and is legally considered an extension of the  mother's body.  Few favor third trimester abortion (I do not, either).  I am not aware of any counter to this viability standard that is not driven by conservative Christianity trying to impose its doctrines on the rest of us.  As @Genady pointed out, in some nations not controlled by Christian would-be theocrats, abortion is legal and safe and accessible to all who need it.  America was not founded as a theocracy, nor should it become one, so why would we derive laws from religious doctrines?

 

 

I would suspect that viability might be pretty close to the point where a majority of Americans would consider the fetus to have a right to life, as long as it did not significantly threaten the life of the mother.

 

I'm not sure what religions would advocate based on that, assuming it matters beyond their influence on votes.

I did bring up pain. Pain and loss of essence (with the reasoning that both affected fetuses further from the point of conception). Pain considerations seemed to be questioned more than essence, maybe as it is considered more tangible? Is the Law just about the other?

[J.C.MacSwell]

As per my link earlier the SCOTUS at least considers pain when ruling on executions, and I would think would again on any gaps left by any overturning of Roe vs Wade, or it's replacements in Law if congress ever produces anything.

But I would suspect essence more so, whether possible or not to measure it even indirectly, or by reasonable assumptions in comparison of fetal development vs baby out of womb.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is the Law just about the other?

The law is about neither. The law is about the accepted mores of a society. These mores can be set by general consensus, standard behaviour patterns in the majority, or imposed by a powerful minority, according to their own beliefs and interests. That last is by far the most common basis of law. And that's why it always takes a great, dangerous [to the power-structure] groundswell of public sentiment to change any law once it's in effect.

Undoing such a change grows more difficult with the passage of time, as the newly-legal act works its way into standard behaviour and eventually, the social mores. (the abolition of slavery has been working hard it for a century and half, yet still encounters backlash) That's why the FoD need so urgently to claw back women's autonomy.     

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Undoing such a change grows more difficult with the passage of time, as the newly-legal act works its way into standard behaviour and eventually, the social mores. (the abolition of slavery has been working hard it for a century and half, yet still encounters backlash) That's why the FoD need so urgently to claw back women's autonomy.     

Not challenging the point you are making, but what backlash remains against the abolition of slavery?

Also what is the FoD? (Googling it I got nothing that made sense to the context)

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

but what backlash remains against the abolition of slavery

Quote

White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites. Groups listed in a variety of other categories—Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead and Christian Identity—could also be fairly described as white nationalist.https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Also what is the FoD?

ForcesofDarkness - those factions dedicated to a return to medieval social hierarchy.

[TheVat]

I guessed Fiends of Depravity, but my guesses at initialisms are not always well thought out.  Forces of Dogmatism?  Founders of Delaware?  Followers of Demiurge? Fans of Druids?  Fearful of Dentures?

Really not good at this kind of sleuthing.

Help us, @Peterkin.   

 

ETA:. Thank you!

Edited May 7, 2022 by TheVat
Eta

[Peterkin]

Sorry, it's a holdover from the SF/fantasy fandom of my youth.

[J.C.MacSwell]

57 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

ForcesofDarkness - those factions dedicated to a return to medieval social hierarchy.

Thanks for both.

If we want to protect the good parts of our way of life, and make progress on the rest, the last thing we need are white nationalists.

[TheVat]

Alito’s Plan to Repeal the 20th Century

If the conservative justice’s draft opinion is adopted by the Court, key advances of the past hundred years could be rolled back.

By Adam Serwer

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/alito-leaked-roe-opinion-abortion-supreme-court-civil-rights/629748/

(Clip from the article)

“Plessy is, at its absolute core, a states’-rights case, in which the Court envisioned a notion of federalism so weak, so toothless, so bereft of substance that the federal government had no legitimate role in protecting Black people from states imposing racial segregation upon them,” Aderson Francois, a law professor at Georgetown University, told me. “This draft does the same thing: It envisions a notion of federalism so weak, so toothless, so bereft of substance that the federal government has no legitimate role in protecting women from states imposing forced births upon them.”

[MigL]

So, because the Federal Government is so 'toothless' and won't provide proper laws, Mr A Serwer thinks a bunch of unelected SC Justices should ?

Justice Alito is saying
"That's not my job !"
"Look to your elected representatives to provide the proper laws."

[StringJunky]

Allito has a point. Abortion laws need to be baked into federal laws to have national primacy. The SC can't rule on what the Constitution doesn't cover... as far as I can see. As I understand it, the sole role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution. Until Congress rules and amends that it  part of the Constitution, I can't see how anything can be done there.

Edited May 8, 2022 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Just now, StringJunky said:

Allito has a point. Abortion laws need to be baked into federal laws to have national primacy

Alito apparently ignored the 9th amendment, and laws can be overturned. The GOP is already discussing a national ban if they get back in power.