It’s very hard to overturn a SCOTUS decision without a Constitutional Amendment.
So no one pick isn’t going to flush roe v. wade down the toilet of history where it belongs, by itself.
Well then there should be a lot of pissed off evangelicals haha
Hey, I’m not an evangelical and I would be pissed!
1 Like
It’s time we evolve past solving our problems by ending another’s life.
It will take time, but in time we will one day view it as we view slavery now. Inherently wrong.
Nor am I.
However, what’s wrong with Evangelicals?
This is why it may be less likely for SCOTUS to send it back to the states and more likely for them to simply affirm that scientific advances have lead them to conclude that the unborn deserve human rights. Its more extreme but a much simpler legal opinion, and doesn’t really require an outright dismissal of precedent.
1 Like
This is why abortion is a less contentious issue in many other countries. They have laws to regulate it, written by their legislatures. Something we can’t imagine here. There’s nothing like a national consensus of opinion.
That said, I can’t imagine the SCOTUS overturning Roe. Giving states more of a say in regulating it? Maybe. When you break down the numbers, the abortion issue has WAY more nuance, meaning more people who would like to see it legal but more rare than it now is. That fight will continue to go on, just as local governments and states will continue to regulate and restrict the right to bear arms.
Similarly, I can’t imagine that they will ever overturn Obergefell either. Thousands of same sex couples have married now. If you look at the will of the people, same sex marriage has more support. It’s a lot less fraught with nuances like “should be legal in some instances, but illegal in other instances.”
If anyone is curious about where Amercans stand on the issues, I’ll include these.
Pew Data Public Opinion on Abortion
1 Like
I don’t forsee this, Pat. Since we’re both Christian, I’d qualify to say it might take Christ showing up.
Good people will continue to disagree, or hold nuanced views on abortion. We’re living in a very imperfect world. You know I’m pro-choice in terms of public policy. Anytime there’s a division of this magnitude, I tend to want people to make their own choices wherever possible.
1 Like
One can believe that abortion, at least at some stage, is “homicide” and still accept that the woman is the best due process judge of its justifiability (given the “very imperfect” world that we live in).
1 Like
I like this sentence a lot! It’s a pretty gray issue.
@pat Are you against the death penalty in all cases? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you talk about it round these parts
One can believe that abortion, at least at some stage, is “homicide” and still accept that the woman is the best due process judge of its justifiability (given the “very imperfect” world that we live in).
1 Like
Not pat.
I also hold nuanced views on the death penalty. I reject the flawed logic that we cannot tell the difference between an innocent unborn human and a serial killer.
I only asked due to his comment about 'evolve past solving our problems by ending another’s life." My comment certainly wasn’t equating serial killers with a fetus/etc.
I’m pro death penalty myself, and would actually advocate to make it more common if there was a chance society would move that way.
2 Likes
It would require that a bunch of judges actually knew science.
Also not pat, but I like that you asked the question and would like to answer it myself. I am anti-death penalty. To begin with, I am not sure it’s very effective as a deterrent. Nor, am I keen on using death as a punishment. I think choosing life makes us all better, even when confronted with extreme circumstances. Especially when confronted with difficult circumstances. Showing some mercy, and valuing life over punishment isn’t for the benefit of the guilty. It’s for our benefit. And my gosh, doesn’t it just give you chills when you read another story about someone else being exonerated through the discovery of new evidence, years and years after a conviction? At least with prison sentences you can give the wrongly convicted the rest of his/her life back. Perhaps even some compensation. However, you can’t do that with a man the state has already executed.
3 Likes
You’ve stretched the concept of due process well past any reasonable understanding. There is no precedent whereby the arbitrary whims of a private citizen can be deemed due process.
If the legality of abortion should be left up to women, the legality of rape should be left up to men. I see no reason why the legality of an act should be determined by its perpetrators without considering the fate of the victims.
Is there justifiable rape? There is justifiable homicide. The mother is in a unique position to understand her health related factors and is also in a position to hopefully care about the life of the unborn.
Who would be a better judge in this world?
The reasoning goes like this.
- At least some abortions are justifiable for health reasons (much less granted than the actual rate by a factor of 10-20x).
- There is not anyone else who is in a better position to weigh and judge the justifiabilily than the woman who may be at risk and who also legally represents the child.
It is not similar to your rape example since the rapist is not by any measure the most appropriate judge since the victim can speak for themselves and the rapist has no hypothetical interest in the wellbeing of the victim.
I think that the appropriate counter to my suggestion would be that the unborn deserves due process with certain elements such as independent representation. Then we just have a hearing for every abortion case. In any event, the Supreme Court might decide what constitutes due process, or possibly leave that to the states which wouldn’t work since there would be cases sent back to SCOTUS in short order.
1 Like
Women can rape. Poor analogy.
And men pretty much have and do determine the legality of rape.
My nuanced view of it is if incarnation serves the public good and keeps people safe then that should be the option used.
If however, you have gangs or like the Mafia continuing to run operations where people are getting hurt, despite being incarcerated then the state has a right and a duty to protect the people from that person either in prison or out.
So, if a person is no danger to himself or others, let them live. If they are still dangerous to others, even in prison, the give them the needle.
This is a bit of a tangent to the OP, but an important legal issue in my eyes
1 Like