The Roe Countdown

[Meadmaker]

Because of the severity of the penalty for murder? Yes. I absolutely believe so.



I am not a lawyer, however the acronym for that weirds me out, but I believe if it's ruled unconstitutional then it's stricken from the constitution, whether state or federal. I have nothing to back that up, but I'm fairly certain once it's struck down then it just goes into the abyss. It's no longer considered to be "on the record" as it were. Those cases would be dismissed. I'm not sure if they could be brought up for trial again as, since the law wasn't constitutional, no crime at the time was committed.

On the other hand, the laws don't disappear....although it's complicated.

Michigan's anti-abortion law was written in 1931. It was overturned by Roe v. Wade. It's "still on the books", i.e. it was never repealed, and was never superceded by a different statute.

According to a lawyer I saw on TV, 30 days after the Supreme Court publishes the opinion from this new case, the old law comes back to life, and abortion is illegal in Michigan again, with no new legislative action.

Where the 30 day figure comes in, he didn't say, and I have no idea. I don't even know if he's correct, but he's a lawyer, I'm not, and he seemed confident.

However.....our governor, Gretchen Whitmer doesn't want that law to be active again, so she is suing in Michigan courts to prevent it from coming back. How that case shakes out, I don't know. I just know that our elected Supreme Court judges are Democrats, so I think if there is any way they can interpret things so that abortion stays legal, they will.

 

[Cain]

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/chris-murphy-abortion-warning-fox-news-sunday/:

In this context, one has to ask: Even if you accept McConnell’s vow to keep the filibuster, is this a promise he can actually keep?

Imagine that, with Republicans controlling the White House and Congress in 2025, Senate Democrats filibuster legislation banning abortion nationally. Would Republicans really stop there and say, “Oh well, we tried”? As Stewart says, that “seems very unlikely.”

It won't happen if Republicans say they're not going to do it. Can you think of any time they've lied to grab power? Lindsey Graham said he would not vote for a Republican Supreme Court nominee during an election year, and he was true to his nature.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree, and I wasn't meaning to imply that this is a thing that is a substantive part of the debate. I just wanted to start with an extreme position and then walk it back from there.

It's not an extreme position. It's a BS dishonest lie position, there is a difference.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trevor Noah put clips together of the right-wing whining because people protested in front of a couple SCOTUS justices' houses and firebombed (sort of) an anti-abortion office after the alt-right's apparent amnesia about all the violence against abortion clinics and their staff. Do they really not remember?

 

[Meadmaker]

It's not an extreme position. It's a BS dishonest lie position, there is a difference.

You know what I love here? I use something as an illustration. Let's take something obvious. No one would allow killing a baby about to be delivered, right? Everyone agrees, right?


See what I'm doing there? I'm finding the thing we can all agree on. Let's start from a position that everyone can go for common ground. We all agree that no one could possibly support that position, can't we?


And somehow that turns into "You're lying"


Better than that, it turns into "You're lying because no one would ever do that."


Oh, well. It's what I get for trying to argue fine points of law on a hot button issue.



Vote.

 

[The Atheist]

No one would allow killing a baby about to be delivered, right? Everyone agrees, right?

Not entirely. Late term abortions do occur, including one in Australia aborted at 32 weeks, which is a well and truly viable baby. The baby had dwarfism, but was not otherwise abnormal, and in a beautiful case of irony, the identical drugs were used to kill the baby that were used in capital punishment and are now banned.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...at-is-sometimes-necessary-20111029-1mpiz.html

 

[Planigale]

You know what I love here? I use something as an illustration. Let's take something obvious. No one would allow killing a baby about to be delivered, right? Everyone agrees, right?


See what I'm doing there? I'm finding the thing we can all agree on. Let's start from a position that everyone can go for common ground. We all agree that no one could possibly support that position, can't we?


And somehow that turns into "You're lying"


Better than that, it turns into "You're lying because no one would ever do that."


Oh, well. It's what I get for trying to argue fine points of law on a hot button issue.



Vote.

Decapitation of a full term baby to 'manage' an obstructed labour is a recognised medical procedure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540979/

So this is not something that we can all agree on.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Republicans have no problem with the killing just newborns (in police raids when they got the wrong address), so why should I believe them when they say they care about unborns?

 

[Bob001]

Decapitation of a full term baby to 'manage' an obstructed labour is a recognised medical procedure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540979/

So this is not something that we can all agree on.

You failed to note that according to your link the fetus was already dead as a result of "A Fatal and Extremely Rare Obstetric Complication" before the procedure. And decapitation was not performed.

At first, an attempt to take out the dead fetus by using internal podalic version and breech extraction was made, but this manipulation was inefficient. Decapitation was not chosen as a treatment option due to the clinician's insufficient experience and lack of proper instruments for this aggressive operation. Consequently, a caesarean section with low vertical incision was preferred as an alternative treatment method and a 2950 g, male, dead fetus were delivered.

You also failed to note that the link includes a gruesome picture that I would prefer not to have seen.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Republicans have no problem with the killing just newborns (in police raids when they got the wrong address), so why should I believe them when they say they care about unborns?

Perhaps it's because they can't be certain what color the child is until after it's born.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Perhaps it's because they can't be certain what color the child is until after it's born.

sadly, very true.

 

[Meadmaker]

Decapitation of a full term baby to 'manage' an obstructed labour is a recognised medical procedure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540979/

So this is not something that we can all agree on.

I expected someone to do that. You're right of course. Those two lives are intertwined and sometimes you have to choose one.


When legislation is written, it sometimes goes on for pages because they have to cover all the edge cases. In a discussion, though, you have to simplify things to the point that regular speech is possible.

Of course, that assumes people want regular speech. When dealing with a hot button issue like abortion, in an unrestricted public discussion, it's a pretty safe bet that there will be enough people involved that it will devolve into nonsense no matter what happens.

In this case what I'm trying to do is find some sort of statement about human life that we could agree is true. At what point is it ok to kill that organism just because you don't want to deal with it? I would hope that we could all agree that once it's outside the mom, you can't kill it. I would hope, in fact, that if it's healthy, and mom's healthy, and it's on the way out (i.e. mom is in labor) you can't kill it just because you don't want to deal with it.

Now, starting from that point, work your way backwards. At what point do you say that it is, in fact, ok to kill it just because you don't want it to turn into a living breathing baby?

For my purposes here, the answer doesn't even matter. Whether you say 24 weeks of pregnancy, or implantation, or even fertilization, it doesn't really matter for the question I'm getting at. The point is that you have to ask the question. From a legal standpoint, someone has to provide an answer, so that a person can know whether they are breaking the law. Who should that be? Should that be a judge, or a legislator?




But....that's not something a lot of people find interesting, and, what's more, they're suspicious of anyone who would even worry about such details. So, it devolves into name calling, slogans, and maybe an occasional molotov cocktail.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not entirely. Late term abortions do occur, including one in Australia aborted at 32 weeks, which is a well and truly viable baby. The baby had dwarfism, but was not otherwise abnormal, and in a beautiful case of irony, the identical drugs were used to kill the baby that were used in capital punishment and are now banned.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...at-is-sometimes-necessary-20111029-1mpiz.html

I am assured that even mentioning such a case is a BS dishonest position.

 

[cosmicaug]

Decapitation of a full term baby to 'manage' an obstructed labour is a recognised medical procedure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540979/

So this is not something that we can all agree on.

Decapitation could be preferred as a modality of treatment in dead fetuses for decreasing the surgical risks associated with caesarean section following prolonged labor

That's not even a paper supporting that. It's not even a paper describing decapitation being done. It's a paper describing a circumstance where it should have been done (thus avoiding an unnecessary Caesarean) but wasn't due to lack of training. Also, note the highlighted part.

Do you have a problem with any of that?

 

[theprestige]

I expected someone to do that. You're right of course. Those two lives are intertwined and sometimes you have to choose one.


When legislation is written, it sometimes goes on for pages because they have to cover all the edge cases. In a discussion, though, you have to simplify things to the point that regular speech is possible.

Of course, that assumes people want regular speech. When dealing with a hot button issue like abortion, in an unrestricted public discussion, it's a pretty safe bet that there will be enough people involved that it will devolve into nonsense no matter what happens.

In this case what I'm trying to do is find some sort of statement about human life that we could agree is true. At what point is it ok to kill that organism just because you don't want to deal with it? I would hope that we could all agree that once it's outside the mom, you can't kill it. I would hope, in fact, that if it's healthy, and mom's healthy, and it's on the way out (i.e. mom is in labor) you can't kill it just because you don't want to deal with it.

Now, starting from that point, work your way backwards. At what point do you say that it is, in fact, ok to kill it just because you don't want it to turn into a living breathing baby?

For my purposes here, the answer doesn't even matter. Whether you say 24 weeks of pregnancy, or implantation, or even fertilization, it doesn't really matter for the question I'm getting at. The point is that you have to ask the question. From a legal standpoint, someone has to provide an answer, so that a person can know whether they are breaking the law. Who should that be? Should that be a judge, or a legislator?




But....that's not something a lot of people find interesting, and, what's more, they're suspicious of anyone who would even worry about such details. So, it devolves into name calling, slogans, and maybe an occasional molotov cocktail.

You could guess that nobody wants to legalize abortions of convenience in the third trimester, but even then I bet you'd be surprised at the amount of disagreement there

But really what we're talking about is abortions of convenience. All this crap about the health of the mother and late term medical contingencies is a red herring, to avoid having to rationalize or even discuss the actual question: Abortions of convenience, yea or nay?

 

[Meadmaker]

You could guess that nobody wants to legalize abortions of convenience in the third trimester, but even then I bet you'd be surprised at the amount of disagreement there

But really what we're talking about is abortions of convenience. All this crap about the health of the mother and late term medical contingencies is a red herring, to avoid having to rationalize or even discuss the actual question: Abortions of convenience, yea or nay?

I will concur in part and dissent in part.

I agree with the point that you are making. Society has to decide if abortions are to be legal, and when, and yes, the primary issue is abortions of convenience, or elective abortions, or whatever term you want to use.

That's the concurring part. Now the dissenting part.

The question that I, specifically, am getting at is not whether they should be legal, but rather who should make that decision? Should it be the courts, or the legislatures?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What kind of a ****** up person can think there is any such thing as a convenient third term abortion?

 

[Bob001]

You could guess that nobody wants to legalize abortions of convenience in the third trimester, but even then I bet you'd be surprised at the amount of disagreement there

But really what we're talking about is abortions of convenience. All this crap about the health of the mother and late term medical contingencies is a red herring, to avoid having to rationalize or even discuss the actual question: Abortions of convenience, yea or nay?

Why do you claim that? The evidence is that less than 1% of abortions occur in the third term, and even under Roe v. Wade the states can prohibit them except to protect the life and health of the mother. Where is your evidence that any significant number are "of convenience?"

From the link above:

Levy: Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus.

Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman’s health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. These conditions can also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. They might include premature rupture of membranes (where the fluid surrounding the fetus is lost before labor), uterine infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal.

It’s important to note, if a woman’s health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html

Or do you think abortion of a fetus so severely damaged that it can't survive to be "of convenience?"

 

[theprestige]

What kind of a ****** up person can think there is any such thing as a convenient third term abortion?

The kind of person who finally realizes late in their pregnancy that it would still be a hell of a lot more convenient than eighteen years of child-raising.

But I'll put you on the list of "provisionally opposing legal abortions of convenience in the third trimester".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There is no freaking such thing as a convenient third trimester abortion.