The Roe Countdown

[Upchurch]

And I supplied the context of the question which was an organism inside a pregnant woman.

Can embryos be transplanted as you implied or not?

I mean, I can repeat the answer as often as you repeat the question, although I will probably just link to the post from now on.

No, I don't mean that transplanting pregnancies is generally possible. (Although, it doesn't seem like there is any reason they shouldn't be, only being limited by current technology.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

Does anyone here think embryonic transplants are going to solve the abortion issue?

No? Didn't think so.

 

[Meadmaker]

^This, which is why Meadmaker is making hay with ambiguously worded part of my argument, rather than addressing the crux of it:

​

Ok.....In this case, the exercise I will leave to the reader is to go back and see if the series of responses makes sense, and exactly where the subject got changed. There was a different subject being discussed a little bit ago which I will ignore unless someone returns it to that point.

However, now that I know what you mean, I will try and address what you mean, regardless of how we got there. If I miss something important, I am sure you will correct me, and it's even fairly likely someone will beat you to it.


Personhood of embryo, fetus, fertilized egg, or organism with human DNA at any point prior to birth.....


At what point does that organism become a "person", or a "human being". As far as I know, those two terms are synonymous.

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that. I don't even know if anyone even truly understands the question. I would answer, "When it becomes sentient", but I can't tell you when that is or how to test for it, and that's only my opinion anyway. So what does that imply about whether it has the right to life?

It doesn't imply anything, because the question about becoming a person hasn't been answered.

However, there is a related question that is more important. That question involves legality. At what point can that organism be treated as if it were a person with legal rights, particularly the right to life? That is not the same question as when it becomes a person, and the distinction matters.

As with all legal questions, the answer should found in the law. We look in the Constitution first, because any answer found in that document supersedes any other US law. However, there's nothing in there where the question can be answered.

We can look to tradition. However, in order to go back to old tradition, we would have to go back to a time when they didn't even know that there was such a thing as a fetus. Roe v. Wade went back there, but ended up citing a guy who presided over sentencing witches to death. Surely we can't take that seriously, can we?

Or, we can look to statutory law.

It is my opinion that in cases where there is no clear guidance in the Constitution itself, deference should be given to the legislature.

I'm willing to extend, interpret, and go beyond the original intention of those who wrote the Constitution and its amendments in a lot of cases. As I have said, I think there are a lot of things implied by the text even if they are not specifically in the text. One poster here noted that some of those things implied by the text have been developed over the decades, and even centuries, into the doctrines that have been articulated by the court. I agree with that.

However, I cannot see where the question of the beginning of the right to life of a fetus is answered in the Constitution. I don't think the answer is implied anywhere. Therefore, I think it should be the subject of a legislative answer, rather than a court ruling.

As for whether those things in the petri dish at the fertility clinid are "human beings" or not, I don't think so. But why should my opinion matter more than the next person's? Err.....uh.....next person capable of casting an informed ballot in an election.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Or you could just clearly argue why you think abortion is bad instead of gish galloping and JAQing off.

 

[Upchurch]

However, there is a related question that is more important. That question involves legality. At what point can that organism be treated as if it were a person with legal rights, particularly the right to life? That is not the same question as when it becomes a person, and the distinction matters.

I don't understand what distinction you trying to make or if there is any true difference. If the organism is a person, it has at least some legal rights. If the organism is not a person*, it doesn't have legal rights. We may not be able to determine the transition from non-personhood to personhood with precision, but it is clear that "person" means "has at least some legal rights"

As with all legal questions, the answer should found in the law. We look in the Constitution first, because any answer found in that document supersedes any other US law. However, there's nothing in there where the question can be answered.

That's not entirely true. The 14th Amendment confers citizenship on "All persons born ...in the United States", meaning that the Constitution recognizes birth as one of the significant events for designating whether a person is a citizen or not. Further, US tax laws do not allow counting persons who haven't been born as dependents, even though they garner expenses. One cannot purchase life insurance for a person who has not been born. I can't remember how the health insurance worked, but I'm pretty certain I could not add my kids until after they were born.

There is nothing explicitly says that an unborn person doesn't have some legal rights, but there are a bunch of laws that don't consider an unborn person until after they are born.

We can look to tradition. However, in order to go back to old tradition, we would have to go back to a time when they didn't even know that there was such a thing as a fetus. Roe v. Wade went back there, but ended up citing a guy who presided over sentencing witches to death. Surely we can't take that seriously, can we?

I've already addressed tradition a couple of times in this thread, with links. For thousands of years, most traditions held that a fetus became a unique being during the "quickening" or when the first independent movement can be sensed by the mother. Depending on who you ask, this happens sometime between 16-20 weeks, or as much as 24 weeks according to the Catholic church, before they decided personhood started at conception somewhere around 1869 (I think).

Or, we can look to statutory law.

It is my opinion that in cases where there is no clear guidance in the Constitution itself, deference should be given to the legislature.

I mean, there is currently 50 years of Constitutional precedent still in effect with no direct contradiction in any other part of the Constitution, like there were in (presumably) other overturned precedents. But aside from that....

ETA: Aside from that, we have the precedent of pre-Roe US laws which tended to stick with the quickening timeline until somewhere in the mid-19th century and about the time the Catholic church changed it's position on when the soul enters the body to conception.

However, I cannot see where the question of the beginning of the right to life of a fetus is answered in the Constitution. I don't think the answer is implied anywhere. Therefore, I think it should be the subject of a legislative answer, rather than a court ruling.

That might be true if there weren't already established rights to privacy and bodily autonomy; and the 14th Amendment prevents the removal of those rights without due process. Without an established legal precedent that a embryo/fetus < 16-20 weeks after a woman's last period is a person, there is no competing argument for why a woman's established rights should be removed.

As for whether those things in the petri dish at the fertility clinid are "human beings" or not, I don't think so. But why should my opinion matter more than the next person's? Err.....uh.....next person capable of casting an informed ballot in an election.

Then, can we agree, at least, that fertilized embryos are not people, regardless of whether they are inside or outside of someone else's body?



* again with exceptions for some non-human organism like endangered species and whatnot.

 

[Meadmaker]

Then, can we agree, at least, that fertilized embryos are not people, regardless of whether they are inside or outside of someone else's body?

I agree, but not everyone agrees with us.

As for the rest of your answer, it covers some familiar ground. As I'm sure you expect, I don't buy into the arguments related to taxes and such, but they aren't ridiculous.

and....

* again with exceptions for some non-human organism like endangered species and whatnot.

Well, yeah......the legislature sometimes protects organisms, even when those organisms are not mentioned in the Constitution, and even if it infringes on rights, especially property rights, of people who are mentioned in the Constitution.

ETA: And if there is some point that you would really like to see addressed, I'll do it. I know I hate it when I write something I think is profound and want to see how someone responds, and they just ignore it, so if there's anything like that in your post, feel free to ask. In general, i think it's a good summary of legal arguments made for the pro-abortion, and specifically pro Roe v. Wade, position. That doesn't mean I reach the same conclusion, but I just don't have anything to add at this point.

 

[Upchurch]

I agree, but not everyone agrees with us.

Great, but I suspect that those who don't agree do so for religious reasons, which is no basis for making legal decisions.

 

[Bob001]

Another consequence of ending Roe: women who miscarry won't get urgent care.

Medical providers who treat pregnancy-related issues in red states exist in a constant state of fear of performing any procedure that can be classified as an abortion—even while the procedures remain legal. We know that we face the risk of being prosecuted, having our licenses revoked, or even being thrown in jail if we fail to precisely follow every regulation, no matter how arcane or medically unnecessary it is.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ortion-ban-reproductive-medicine-alabama.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I somehow don't believe that any woman who goes to an emergency room with vaginal bleeding will be sent on their way..

 

[thaiboxerken]

I somehow don't believe that any woman who goes to an emergency room with vaginal bleeding will be sent on their way..

More likely, they'll be held for questioning by law enforcement to ensure that they didn't "murder" the fetus/embrio/zygote.

 

[Bob001]

I somehow don't believe that any woman who goes to an emergency room with vaginal bleeding will be sent on their way..

A doctor says otherwise. Read the link.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the same minorities control the Senate, and in recent history, the President, so that minority picks who is on the Supreme Court, which is how we got to where we are.

I'm not sure what your point is.

A minority did not elect Obama.

We got where we are because a minority controlled the SC appointments.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At the time, the majority of the country didn't want Roe to begin with.

Bull ****.

Isn't the point of the court to decide constitutionality without regard to popularity?

This ignores the issue, a minority put those justices on the court.

...
I suspect that you are actually indifferent to how the question is decided, and only care that it is decided in your favor.

More dodging the issue.

That isn't a premise. That is a conclusion, and an obvious one.

Not relevant to what I said.

That's... still in the hands of the legislature. Which is what I said. You haven't shown any flaws in my conclusion, you have actually re-affirmed it.

There's never any point in a discussion with someone who twists what people said into straw men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can't remember where I heard it. It's possible I'm wrong.

Ya think?

 

[Warp12]

No matter what decision comes down, I am going to celebrate. If it isn't overturned I am going to laugh at the liberal panic before, and if it is overturned I am laughing at the ensuing enhanced panic. "Our panic goes to 11, you see".

This scenario is amazing.

 

[dudalb]

God. does nothing matter to you but "Owning The Libs"?

 

[Paul2]

Ok.....In this case, the exercise I will leave to the reader is to go back and see if the series of responses makes sense, and exactly where the subject got changed. There was a different subject being discussed a little bit ago which I will ignore unless someone returns it to that point.

However, now that I know what you mean, I will try and address what you mean, regardless of how we got there. If I miss something important, I am sure you will correct me, and it's even fairly likely someone will beat you to it.


Personhood of embryo, fetus, fertilized egg, or organism with human DNA at any point prior to birth.....


At what point does that organism become a "person", or a "human being". As far as I know, those two terms are synonymous.

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that. I don't even know if anyone even truly understands the question. I would answer, "When it becomes sentient", but I can't tell you when that is or how to test for it, and that's only my opinion anyway. So what does that imply about whether it has the right to life?

It doesn't imply anything, because the question about becoming a person hasn't been answered.

However, there is a related question that is more important. That question involves legality. At what point can that organism be treated as if it were a person with legal rights, particularly the right to life? That is not the same question as when it becomes a person, and the distinction matters.

As with all legal questions, the answer should found in the law. We look in the Constitution first, because any answer found in that document supersedes any other US law. However, there's nothing in there where the question can be answered.

We can look to tradition. However, in order to go back to old tradition, we would have to go back to a time when they didn't even know that there was such a thing as a fetus. Roe v. Wade went back there, but ended up citing a guy who presided over sentencing witches to death. Surely we can't take that seriously, can we?

Or, we can look to statutory law.

It is my opinion that in cases where there is no clear guidance in the Constitution itself, deference should be given to the legislature.

I'm willing to extend, interpret, and go beyond the original intention of those who wrote the Constitution and its amendments in a lot of cases. As I have said, I think there are a lot of things implied by the text even if they are not specifically in the text. One poster here noted that some of those things implied by the text have been developed over the decades, and even centuries, into the doctrines that have been articulated by the court. I agree with that.

However, I cannot see where the question of the beginning of the right to life of a fetus is answered in the Constitution. I don't think the answer is implied anywhere. Therefore, I think it should be the subject of a legislative answer, rather than a court ruling.

As for whether those things in the petri dish at the fertility clinid are "human beings" or not, I don't think so. But why should my opinion matter more than the next person's? Err.....uh.....next person capable of casting an informed ballot in an election.

This frames the entire issue as one of when the rights of the fetus kick in, and ignores the rights of the woman. AFAIK, SCOTUS tried to balance the two competing rights without necessarily fixing either of them separate from the other, and came up with viability in Casey as when the rights of the fetus begin to impinge on the rights of the woman.

 

[smartcooky]

God. does nothing matter to you but "Owning The Libs"?

Nope! Pushing ultra-conservative, fringe views and triggering liberals appears to be the ONLY that that matters to him.

 

[smartcooky]

Can't remember where I heard it.

Your arse maybe?

 

[Warp12]

Nope! Pushing ultra-conservative, fringe views and triggering liberals appears to be the ONLY that that matters to him.

"Ultra-conservative, fringe views"?? Yeah, that is a miss, bud.

I am not expecting, nor am I pushing for Roe to be overturned.