What is the basis for overturning the previous ruling?
It was wrong…? It’s reasoning is scientifically outdated…?
For those of you against abortion, what do you think is the prime motivation for those wanting it to be legal?
1 Like
What was the basis for the original? Where was the right to abortion nationalized in the Constitution or amendments? Where was the right to prohibit abortions prohibited to the states?
From what I have seen it is a matter of Roe not being constitutionally sound. IMO it was a emotionally charged decision that had little or stretched basis in constitutional law.
It was tied to the right to privacy and took a narrow definition of “persons” not to include the unborn.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, “the Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians’ nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,’ or 'common sense.”
Which is exactly what the court did on Roe and its companion case Doe v. Bolton concerning Texas laws on abortion. A privacy right to decide to have an abortion has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution.
Also in their drafting of the trimester framework, the Court in Roe took on a legislative role determining viability and trimesters. Legislating from the bench, which is done often these days it seems.
These touch some of the main points, but there are more and they get more nuanced.
3 Likes
That basically sums it up. FWIW I am pro choice even though I consider myself a conservative on most issues. This is going to be an interesting discussion/debate as much of this will be emotionally driven. Lets see if we can keep it civil.
2 Likes
I think the ruling gave a definition to the right to privacy that included bodily autonomy, and that the rights to bodily autonomy come above the right to life of another.
That’s my take on it. I don’t think a definition of “persons” not including the unborn was required. If rights to bodily autonomy are above another’s right to life, it doesn’t matter if we consider the unborn a person or not in regards to abortion.
If the unborn is a person, it would mean an abortion is performed on 2 people… both of which should have autonomy. Abortion isn’t just the removal of a fetus, it’s a procedure that proactively kills the fetus. It also renders a number of pro-abortion arguments moot.
1 Like
One party is inside the other. Bodily autonomy seems to be interpreted in a way such that one has control over their body and what is inside of it. As a side note, to be consistent with this thinking, suicide should be legal.
Hypothetical for you:
Let’s say that in some weird scenario outside of pregnancy, someone is dependent on someone else’s body to survive. Now the dependent person and the host person no longer get along. They go to the doctor. The doctor says they can detach host person from dependent person, but dependent person will die. Should dependent person get any say on doing or not doing the procedure?
In your hypothetical, the non-dependent should be able to cut the other loose, but it isn’t analogous to abortion.
If you were to change the situation to the procedure being slitting the throat of the dependent person with the added contention that the non-dependent person is largely responsible for putting the dependent person in the existing situation, then it would be close to abortion. It would also make the situation less cut and dry.
1 Like
Hypothetical from you. If I were able to take an existing person, make them dependent on my body and implant them inside my body, should I have the right to slit their throat? But even the dependent thing is arbitrary because fetuses are aborted all the time that could survive without the mother.
2 Likes
This has very little to do with the legality of abortion, but whether Roe v Wade is Constitutional. This is an intellectual debate within the Supreme Court, even if they are all in favor for the legality of abortion.
2 Likes
Does anyone here wish their mom aborted them?
Serious question. Not for your sake, but for your mother’s sake at the time.
I ask because for all of the hypothetical situations where terminating a pregnancy benefits the mother, surely some abortion advocates can reflect on their own upbringing and conclude that their mother would have been much better off without going to all of that trouble.
Anyone here feel like mom made a mistake bringing you into the world?
1 Like
Abortion does not have to involve killing the fetus. To abort a pregnancy, pregnancy has to stop. The fetus could in theory be removed and allowed to die on it’s own. It is kinda seen as inhumane to do so though.
I don’t think in my hypothetical to you that this would be considered. Say the non-dependent is responsible and now is medically attached to the dependent person. Let’s say non-dependent just decides to detach. Did non dependent do anything illegal in detaching?
As an existing person, they would have to consent to you making them dependent. If they consented to it, then I believe you would have the right to slit their throat inside of your body (assuming no contracts or anything).
Not myself, but my brother on the other hand would have been better off never being born. His extreme disabilities, very low quality of life, violence, has made their lives much more difficult than it should have been.
You wouldn’t know the difference if your mother aborted you.
And some might feel their mother made a mistake depending on the circumstances they’re born into.
Sex without responsibility and a means of men (those men in favor of it) placating women to get access to box.
1 Like
Not saying I agree with it, but there does seem to be a bit more than just that. We seem to only be focusing on “sex without responsibility”, but what about situations of pregnancy due to rape or an abortion to save the mother’s life?
I predicted this would be said, as it comes up in nearly all talks about abortion.
Do you know the stats for rape induced births and how many abortions are bad because of them? I don’t. Perhaps I’ll look into it.
Perhaps some men are genuinely concerned about possible death of the mother (what conditions cause this, I haven’t looked into) and rape-caused pregnancy. I don’t think that’s most men in the West currently. My personal opinion: Men in the west value or crave free sex, “dating”, “girlfriends”, and female validation more than they care about safety of women, I believe.
Perhaps I’m cynical or jaded on this matter, for reasons I can express. I’m open to having my mind changed.
3 Likes
I think abortion is abhorrent in most cases but if it means less future non contributing leftist rejects… Scrape away
1 Like
Stats are irrelevant. The fact that they happen are enough for it to be considered. I’m not saying we should just let people get an abortion because they one day said “fuck it” or made a mistake, but there could be some situations where it might be necessary.