ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
I hope you're right.
Judge blocks Missouri 8-week abortion ban
- Thread starter ThatOwlWoman
- Start date
I hope you're right.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello ThatOwlWoman,
Well you know, even if Roe is overturned that does not automatically make abortions illegal. It merely leaves it up to the States.
So what would happen would be this patchwork of differing laws State by State. Abortion might be illegal in one State, but then it's OK across the State line. Some States are almost there anyway. Several States are down to a handful of remaining abortion clinics. Many people live so far from the last one or two in their State, they are essentially already living in a post-Roe world.
And the results are already beginning to pour in.
Birth rates among the poor have risen.
The rich, no problem. They can afford to travel wherever they need to go to get an abortion if they want. It is the poor who are most affected by these laws.
And that is kind of absurd because poor people tend to vote Democratic. Republican lawmakers are in the process of creating more Democratic voters over time.
Or maybe we should now be calling it the Demographic Party.
I've got a thread devoted to that effect if you'd like to talk about that:
Republican Policies Result In More Poor People.
Well you know, even if Roe is overturned that does not automatically make abortions illegal. It merely leaves it up to the States.
So what would happen would be this patchwork of differing laws State by State. Abortion might be illegal in one State, but then it's OK across the State line. Some States are almost there anyway. Several States are down to a handful of remaining abortion clinics. Many people live so far from the last one or two in their State, they are essentially already living in a post-Roe world.
And the results are already beginning to pour in.
Birth rates among the poor have risen.
The rich, no problem. They can afford to travel wherever they need to go to get an abortion if they want. It is the poor who are most affected by these laws.
And that is kind of absurd because poor people tend to vote Democratic. Republican lawmakers are in the process of creating more Democratic voters over time.
Or maybe we should now be calling it the Demographic Party.
I've got a thread devoted to that effect if you'd like to talk about that:
Republican Policies Result In More Poor People.
cawacko
Well-known member
Not to derail the thread but what’s your take on the roe v wade ruling itself? I don’t mean do you support abortion or not. But from a judicial stand point. I’ve heard it argued it was basically the definition of judicial activism and even people who think abortion should be legal say it’s a bad ruling.
However there are obviously many different opinions and viewpoints.
What’s your take?
Life is Golden
It's Morning in America Again
I remember hearing stories about how people had back-alley abortions and died all the time, way back in the day.
I think it was probably legalized to prevent such as that. Would I personally have done it? No. I think it's murder and I would never make the choice to kill a baby. However, I really don't think people should go back to the 30s and 40s where it's never possible. The way I see it is, if you want to kill a baby, you live with that the rest of your life. It has nothing to do with me.
The child does not know if it's being burned, stabbed and torn apart in an alley or in a sterile air conditioned room with people going on lunch break afterward.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Jewish law does not consider the fetus to be a being with a soul until it is born. It does not have personhood. Furthermore, before 40 days, some poskim, or deciders of Jewish law, have a low bar for allowing an abortion.
The Talmud, in Yevamos 69b, cites the view of Rav Hisda that “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.”
If there is a threat to a woman’s life, the safety of the mother takes precedence over continuing the pregnancy at any stage. Many sources illustrate this graphically and rather unambiguously, and all modern poskim, or religious decisors, agree on this. In fact, in certain circumstances, a fetus that endangers the life of the mother is legally considered a “murderer” in active pursuit.
https://www.jta.org/2019/05/22/opinion/what-jewish-law-really-says-about-abortion
The Talmud, in Yevamos 69b, cites the view of Rav Hisda that “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.”
If there is a threat to a woman’s life, the safety of the mother takes precedence over continuing the pregnancy at any stage. Many sources illustrate this graphically and rather unambiguously, and all modern poskim, or religious decisors, agree on this. In fact, in certain circumstances, a fetus that endangers the life of the mother is legally considered a “murderer” in active pursuit.
https://www.jta.org/2019/05/22/opinion/what-jewish-law-really-says-about-abortion
Yes, I think it is a convoluted ruling. They had to use the 9th Amendment (for the first time?) to come up with one of the "other rights" (privacy) and then use the 14th (to apply it to the states) and the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th to support their invention of privacy.
Most people agree with a Supreme Court decision if they like the result, but you can like the result and think it was a bad decision. It should be a decision left to the states although I would want my state to allow abortion.
I also don't like the argument about it being "my body" because there are a lot of things about my body I can't decide--drugs, death, etc. Does that mean that right only applies to women? I am probably a little more sympathetic toward the Griswold v. Ct decision that first used the privacy argument.
In Roe they pointed out that it was originally illegal because it was a dangerous procedure and then made largely legal when it became safer. Later, many states began making prohibitions against it.
I am always confused by arguments against something because it is will be done illegally. Liberals claim if illegal abortions will be done in back alleys but favor guns laws. Conservatives thinks gun laws are pointless because people will get them illegally but favor laws against abortion. While conservatives think people will get guns despite gun laws they think Mexicans can't come across a wall.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
In the Georgia law, abortion is strictly banned and criminalized after approximately six weeks. The law includes a provision that seems to allow for abortion in the case of imminent maternal danger.
But it states that before a legal abortion can proceed, a physician must determine “that a medical emergency exists.” Put in clinical terms, this means that a woman would need to be actively in danger at the time abortion began, along the lines of what Feinstein requires.
Another complication: If a woman is diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy and needs to receive chemotherapy and/or radiation in order to survive, abortion is often needed, and is halachically warranted, prior to these treatments. None of these state level bans seem to allow for this, as the mother is not inherently in a state of medical emergency. Would these states argue that chemotherapy and radiation could be given while she is pregnant, and the fetus may or may not survive this noxious assault? Or perhaps they would argue that these treatments cannot be given, as they might cause a spontaneous abortion? In other cases the law is explicit that intentionally triggering a spontaneous abortion would be grounds for prosecution of the mother and doctor.
There are other nuances in Jewish law that depart from the Christian pro-life narrative:
But it states that before a legal abortion can proceed, a physician must determine “that a medical emergency exists.” Put in clinical terms, this means that a woman would need to be actively in danger at the time abortion began, along the lines of what Feinstein requires.
Another complication: If a woman is diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy and needs to receive chemotherapy and/or radiation in order to survive, abortion is often needed, and is halachically warranted, prior to these treatments. None of these state level bans seem to allow for this, as the mother is not inherently in a state of medical emergency. Would these states argue that chemotherapy and radiation could be given while she is pregnant, and the fetus may or may not survive this noxious assault? Or perhaps they would argue that these treatments cannot be given, as they might cause a spontaneous abortion? In other cases the law is explicit that intentionally triggering a spontaneous abortion would be grounds for prosecution of the mother and doctor.
There are other nuances in Jewish law that depart from the Christian pro-life narrative:
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
In other words, you believe that it is a deeply personal choice and should remain that way? You pretty much summed up my own feelings about it as well. I can only envision one or two circumstances that would have caused me to even consider having an abortion. For me it is an unethical choice. That being said, it is also unethical for me to impose my personal take on it on another woman. Her body is not mine to control; only mine is.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
baby hunting without a license should be strictly regulated...
Life is Golden
It's Morning in America Again
Yep, we are on the same page for sure. I don't want to control anyone else. I think late-term abortion should be banned but not the rest.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
You could have just stopped right there and been correct.
You do not have the right to control another woman's body, any more than she has the right to control yours. You are free, however, to wring your hands, post smarmy memes, and harshly judge others. Carry on.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Missouri, where this recent law was enacted, has only one clinic left that does abortions. It is in St. Louis. So that means any Missouri citizen wanting a medically-supervised procedure must travel there to receive it. So if you live in Columbia, for instance, you'll have to travel almost two hours one way.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
in the early seventies there was an average of under 300 woman who died from illegal abortions every year........to protect them we abort over a million unborn children every year.......meanwhile just under 300 women a year die from legal abortions.....
Do you have a link for this? I question it since birth rates have been falling for years. If true, I question whether abortion has anything to do with it because while birth rates have been falling so have the number of abortions; so, abortions were obviously not responsible for keeping birth rates lower.
Lower income/education women have long had the highest birth rates both in the U. S. and around the world.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I'm okay with deeply personal choices so long as nobody needs to die........
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Other than to save the life of the mother, late-term abortions are illegal almost everywhere. Very few physicians will perform one even where it might still be legal, except to save mom's life -- or if the fetus has died or will be still-born. The froth about babies being born and "murdered" by the doctor is plain bullshit. What the purveyors of this nonsense are talking about are children who are either still-born, or born with such severe defects that they die shortly after birth. The crazies somehow think that life-saving measures should be instituted even when they are clearly ineffective. One example of this is a child born without a developed brain, a condition called anencephaly. Typically, the baby is bathed and wrapped like any newborn, then given to the parents to hold until he/she passes away. Some moms choose to abort when the condition is first discovered via ultrasound; others choose to carry to term, or are forced to if their insurance won't pay for a therapeutic abortion. Either way, it is a heartbreaking thing. What a shame that some feel it is okay to politicize such sorrow, and lie about it. Can you imagine how that must hurt the parents who have gone through such a tragedy?
Life is Golden
It's Morning in America Again
I have no idea about the statistics. But, there are a lot of teenage girls and others unequipped mentally or financially to carry a baby to full term and have abortions early on, when the baby is undeveloped.
Why do you want the government to force these people to carry a baby to full term? Aren't you male?