The "New and revised" USSC has entered the abortion wars

Re: The "New and revised" USSC has entered the abo

au1929 wrote:

The "New and revised" supreme court has entered the abortion wars.
Do you think the Roe v Wade will in the end survive?

(1) Arrogant, nit-picking English usage rant: I don't understand why Americans must call every serious conflict a "war". One tradition I envy you for is that you solve such conflicts through the rule of law, trials, and court decisions -- in other words, that you do not have a tradition of religious wars. I think you guys forget too often how special it is that your high school students memorize the dates of landmark Supreme Court decisions when ours memorize the dates of battles, wars, and armistices. Word coinages like `abortion wars' cheapen one of your countriy's proudest accomplishments. Okay, rant over.

(2) I believe that as the court becomes more conservative, it will nibble away at the edges of Roe v. Wade without officially overturning it. If Republican presidents continue to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts, my best guess is that in ten years, abortion in America will be more restricted than it is now, but it will never become as restricted as in European countries.

0 Replies

In fairness to Au, the use of the noun war in such a context is actually a coinage of the extreme right. They were those who first pushed the use of the phrase "culture wars" to describe the divide between the "family value" crowd and the so-called "secular humanists." I believe, although i'd have to research it, and am too lazy, that the expression culture wars is an academic coinage, but it was quickly embraced by the far right and proliferated thereafter. The same is largely true for the term secular humanist, an academic term only occasionally adopted to describe oneself, it has been adopted as a term of opprobrium by right wingers to describe those whom they see as the enemies of the religious particularism of the Proestant Ascendancy in the United States. It has become such a bête noire for the right, that you have someone like georgeob1 at this site, a catholic educated by Jesuits, who is obsessed with a contention of a secular humanist plot to eliminate theism from American society. I've always denied that there is any such plot, and continue to consider that an absurd contention--although i do see the eliminiation of theism form the public forum to be a laudable goal.

Basically, the political right in general, and the religious right in particular (c.f., the frequent use of "spiritual war against the father of lies") have introduced the metaphor of war for a description of social contention into the American lexicon. It has beome a commonplace.

0 Replies

You are correct, Joe. It is illegal to attempt suicide only in a few states that still list it on the books as a felony but do not enforce it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In fairness to Au, the use of the noun war in such a context is actually a coinage of the extreme right.

Let me add, also in fairness to Au, that I'm not miffed at him personally. It's a grudge I've been holding for quite some time, and he just happened to be the the unfortunate one who triggered my blurting out about it.

Thanks for the historical background, Setanta. It was interesting, as usual.

0 Replies

Thomas, I thought Europe was a patchwork of abortion laws, some countries being much more restrictive than others.

I think that the UK allows abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy, much later than current medical opinion places the time of viability outside the uterus.

And even that doesn't hold if there is a health issue for the mother.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Thomas, I thought Europe was a patchwork of abortion laws, some countries being much more restrictive than others.

It is, but every European abortion law I know is much more restrictive than the ones you have in the US.

Kara wrote:

I think that the UK allows abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy, much later than current medical opinion places the time of viability outside the uterus.

It does, but unlike the US, the UK conditions this permission. Wikipedia, which agrees with what I've learned from talking about this matter with English people, has this to say:

Wikipedia wrote:

The [Abortion] Act [of 1967, which governs abortion today,] allowed a woman to receive an abortion on any of the follow grounds:

* To save the woman's life
* To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health
* Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman
* Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren)
* If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped

This looks to me like a much tighter regulation than what you have in the US.

0 Replies

if roe is dismantled, will the states be required to insure that students are provided with a complete and well rounded program of sex education ?

or will "abstinence only" be the only message?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

if roe is dismantled, will the states be required to insure that students are provided with a complete and well rounded program of sex education ?

or will "abstinence only" be the only message?

If Roe is dismantled and the issue reverts to the state, they will figure out the appropriate changes to the school curriculae through trial, error, and competition between the states. That's not what I'm worried about. What I am worried about is that the Supreme Court overrules Roe concerning a woman's liberty to abort, but the power to regulate abortions does not revert to the state. If abortion remains a federal matter -- as in the Partial Birth Adoption Ban -- that would be a big step backward.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
if roe is dismantled, will the states be required to insure that students are provided with a complete and well rounded program of sex education ?

or will "abstinence only" be the only message?

If Roe is dismantled and the issue reverts to the state, they will figure out the appropriate changes to the school curriculae through trial, error, and competition between the states. That's not what I'm worried about. What I am worried about is that the Supreme Court overrules Roe concerning a woman's liberty to abort, but the power to regulate abortions does not revert to the state. If abortion remains a federal matter -- as in the Partial Birth Adoption Ban -- that would be a big step backward.

stimmt das, thomas.

i do not for one moment believe that the whole "state's rights" argument is anything but a red herring. let's say that the states actually did, in some way, retain the right to self determine the status of abortion, yea or nay. that would not be the end of the pusch to end all abortion. same battle. smaller battlefield. it would/will go on and on, again, until it then is brought back to the supreme court.

ya know thomas, i can't help but think what the reaction would be if things were reversed and the backers of the anti-abortion movement were forced to take on an adopted child at the time and choosing of the government.

"the government cannot tell me to succour children i don't want ! show me in the constitution where it says "a citizen must have children...".

but yeah, overall, a big step backward is probably putting it mildly.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i do not for one moment believe that the whole "state's rights" argument is anything but a red herring.

I'm not sure myself how strong the "rights" part of the "states rights" argument would be. After all, abortion is commerce, and women before Roe routinely travelled out of their states to receive an abortion. That makes it interstate commerce the US government can regulate even if libertarian and conservative justices reduce the reach of the Commerce Clause. Thus, if the Supreme Court wants to give abortion back to the states, I don't see any constitutional argument it can use. The way it seems to me, it would have to refer to lesser authorities than the constitution -- legal traditions, perhaps. I'm not sure.

Don't tread on me wrote:

let's say that the states actually did, in some way, retain the right to self determine the status of abortion, yea or nay. that would not be the end of the pusch to end all abortion. same battle. smaller battlefield. it would/will go on and on, again, until it then is brought back to the supreme court.

The last time I discussed how state court trials can reach the federal Supreme Court, it made joefromchicago offer me a primer on civil and criminal procedure that I arrogantly declined. I am now reluctant to speculate about how an abortion case might reach the Supreme Court after the court decided abortion is a state matter. That said, I am quite comfortable with the conflict going on and on and on. One aspect I particularly like is that Republicans have do make an honest decision whether they want to ban abortion or whether the votes of American women. Because Roe now prohibits them from acting on their alleged abhorrence of abortion, they are now getting a free ride in the polls. Overturning Roe would put an end to that free ride, and I would welcome this.

Don't tread on me wrote:

ya know thomas, i can't help but think what the reaction would be if things were reversed and the backers of the anti-abortion movement were forced to take on an adopted child at the time and choosing of the government.

That's not a reversal, as a) the state does not force the woman to become pregnant in the first place, and b) even before Roe, women were free to give their unwanted children up for adoption.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Don't tread on me wrote:
ya know thomas, i can't help but think what the reaction would be if things were reversed and the backers of the anti-abortion movement were forced to take on an adopted child at the time and choosing of the government.

That's not a reversal, as a) the state does not force the woman to become pregnant in the first place, and b) even before Roe, women were free to give their unwanted children up for adoption.

you're right. what i'm trying to get across is, if a person is willing to insist that a woman carries and delivers a child that she does not want, it should be insisted that person immediately adopt the unwanted child.

as it is now, the pro-lifers wanna make the decision and bear no personal responsibility for their actions. which is just what they constantly accuse women who opt for an abortion of.

there's a word for that... it's right on the tip of my tongue... :wink:

0 Replies

DTOM, out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the adoption rate is for newborns? In other words, what percentage of newborns put up for adoption now are adopted and what is the average number of days a newborn waits before a willing family is found.

Until such time that newborns put up for adoption are going un-adopted for any length of time, your notion that everyone who is anti-abortion should sign up to adopt is no argument at all for abortion.

Of course, I will grant you that if abortion were made illegal, there could well be a glut of newborns needing homes and then your point would certainly be a valid one.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
if roe is dismantled, will the states be required to insure that students are provided with a complete and well rounded program of sex education ?

or will "abstinence only" be the only message?

If Roe is dismantled and the issue reverts to the state, they will figure out the appropriate changes to the school curriculae through trial, error, and competition between the states. . . .

I doubt this. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, before Roe versus Wade, school districts were much exercised by demands for effective sex education. The issue of sex education in schools has been running parallel to and i opine without reference to the abortion issue. The advent of "the pill," of easily used, relatively inexpensive and secret contraception (no one would necessarily know) worked a sea change in sexual mores circa 1960. The so-called "sexual revolution" alarmed many parents and educators, and calls for effective sexual education quickly arose. I believe it is correct to stay that organizations such as Planned Parenthood (already long in existence and dedicated to effective birth control) and militancy such as "women's liberation" brought the abortion issue into the limelight at the same time that a host of issues regarding sexuality were being aired, including effective sexual education.

Part of the reactionary "counter-revolution" which has spawned the so-called "right to life" movement (clever marketing ploy to use such a name) has been the abstinence dodge. It's real purpose has been to end the concept that schools should provide effective sexual education. Claims currently made that it stems from the panic over HIV/AIDS is bogus, as well. It is now very well established that an air steward with Air Candada first brought the human immuno-virus to North America circa late 1978, and spread it in the New York area during a "sexual vacation" on Fire Island in early 1979. Nancy Reagan and her "just say no" (first used with reference to teenage sex, prior to being trotted out for drugs) appears early in 1981, after Ron Reagan's innauguration, and prior to the realization of the nature and scope of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

I should write a social history of the United States in the 20th Century. Fortunately, i'm very lazy.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

DTOM, out of curiosity, do you have any idea what the adoption rate is for newborns? In other words, what percentage of newborns put up for adoption now are adopted and what is the average number of days a newborn waits before a willing family is found.

Until such time that newborns put up for adoption are going un-adopted for any length of time, your notion that everyone who is anti-abortion should sign up to adopt is no argument at all for abortion.

Of course, I will grant you that if abortion were made illegal, there could well be a glut of newborns needing homes and then your point would certainly be a valid one.

nope i don't know coastal. but considering that we still have orphanages and foster parenting, it's pretty clear that there have been kids born and unadopted over at least the last 20 years, which is the amount of time that the pro-life movement has been strongest.

but, as you say, my comments were made in the event that abortion is made illegal.

0 Replies

Thanks DTOM for your response. I haven't done any checking on stats, but from my admittedly limited perspective (I know a few people who are foster parents and a few social workers) a very great majority of children who find themselves in an orphanage or in foster care are older children since most babies are normally quickly and easily adopted (even those with disabilities, although a few of these do go unadopted).

Thus, IF (a big if) Roe v Wade were to go away as we know it now, I think that there would be no shortage of parents for children born to people who would have aborted. Of course, that is only my opinion and we would only know for certain if Roe were to be substantially altered.

0 Replies

You are talking statistics. What about people? Think of your 16-year-old, or your 18-year-old, or your 24-year-old, who is suddenly pregnant.

What are their decisions now based on? Some are economic, some are fear-based, others are totally pragmatic...One says: I am in school, heading for exams, what do I do with a baby? Another: I have a job, a six year old child, my husband left me after she was born. I am with a man who wants to marry me, he says, but it is too soon. He wants me to get rid of it. The other is single, has a minimum wage job, has no supportive family, is totally alone. Another is married, has a newborn, is suddenly unexpectedly pregnant, and her husband has just lost his job. He is enraged at the pregnancy, threatens to leave if she does not abort.

You are speaking of adoptions. That is okay, and of course that is the best way out for a woman who cannot care for a child. But what about the nine months? Why does no one talk about that? The first 3-4 months are okay -- life continues as usual --but what about the showing months?

It is easy to come along after and say You should not have done this. You are a woman and you know you can get pregnant. You should be the cautious one. (I think, in fact, that this is the best argument to present to your daughters. I have flogged it endlessly to my own.)

I wonder sometimes if this is not the basis for men feeling they are the superior gender. I would feel superior if I could enjoy sex and walk away. Aha, you say some men do not do that? Well, what do they offer? Marriage? Enslavement to solve a problem? And having offered, they can always say that the woman refused that solution. Support? Ah, yes, money is thrown at the problem but who shops, cooks, and puts them to bed?

I cannot go with abortion. I knew someone close to me who could not do that either, and she hid for months and then gave the baby up for adoption. This is a difficult path and almost impossible for some people in their circumstances.

I think we must offer legal options, rejected as they are by me and others. This is not an uncomplex issue with pro or con answers.

0 Replies

Kara, yes, I am talking statistics because a particular comment was made that made the statistics relavent.

People are not statistics. There are real lives affected when a woman becomes pregnant. And I don't mean to minimize that by talking statistics.

But, when a man and a woman choose to have sex, they are choosing to risk a pregnancy. And, if they choose to accept that risk, they should choose to accept the consequences of that risk. For the man, this should mean the financial consequences of paying for the birth and for the woman this means the consequences of carrying the child for the nine months. Sorry, but biologically, that is the way it works out.

If the woman makes the decision not to keep the child, then fine. But why kill a child just because you chose to risk creating a child and lost the gamble?

But regardless of whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life, I agree with you that this is a complex issue. And a very emotional one for a lot of people. And one that regardless of what happens with Roe v Wade, one that will not go away anytime in the near future.

0 Replies

Quote:

But, when a man and a woman choose to have sex, they are choosing to risk a pregnancy. And, if they choose to accept that risk, they should choose to accept the consequences of that risk. For the man, this should mean the financial consequences of paying for the birth and for the woman this means the consequences of carrying the child for the nine months. Sorry, but biologically, that is the way it works out.

CR, what you are saying is What is, is.

The nine months, and all of the attendant circumstances during and after, are the price that a woman pays for having sex in an uncommitted relationship. His payments are in coin; hers are in blood. And, of course, she knew, knows, should have known, etc., ad infinitum.

Quote:

If the woman makes the decision not to keep the child, then fine. But why kill a child

I spoke of this. For her, the decision may not be to kill or not kill a child. For us, uninvolved, this is the essential choice. But the tortured choice -- and people do not always make good decisions in crisis -- is that having that child takes, if not nine months, three or four months out of her life and perhaps takes away her work and means of support. An unmarried pregnant woman's choices narrrow down drastically in the last trimester. If she has no support, how does she live and give birth? I am convinced that it is fear of such consequence that drives many women to abortion.

0 Replies

kARA:

As usual, Joe from Chicago, who says he is a lawyer, slides over the truth about Suicide. I hope that he knows that in some jurisdictions in the United States attempted suicide is a crime and some jurisdictions hold an attempted suicide which kills an innocent bystander to be murder, others manslaughter, others no crime.

Since there have been cases in which someone who has murdered a woman carrying a viable fetus where they were also charged with the murder of the fetus, I think that the attempted suicide which kills the innocent bystander( viable fetus) could logically be charged as murder!

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

For her, the decision may not be to kill or not kill a child. For us, uninvolved, this is the essential choice. But the tortured choice -- and people do not always make good decisions in crisis -- is that having that child takes, if not nine months, three or four months out of her life and perhaps takes away her work and means of support. An unmarried pregnant woman's choices narrrow down drastically in the last trimester. If she has no support, how does she live and give birth? I am convinced that it is fear of such consequence that drives many women to abortion.

details, details, kara. Laughing

there's also still a lingering stigma about unwed mothers in some parts of the country. not to mention the continued talk about welfare moms.

like i've mentioned before, abortion and it's apparent companion issue, gay marriage, don't effect me or my wife personally. but, we both feel like once you start letting the government dictate your personal way of life, a lot of other things are likely to follow.

it's not the government's job, or place, to legislate sexual morality or other parts of the people's personal life.

0 Replies

The "New and revised" USSC has entered the abortion wars

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know