They’re totally ineffective at furthering the cause of banning abortion. Late term abortions are a tiny fraction of the total.
To the extent that public opinion shifts in a more pro-life direction in future, if it happens, it will probably have more to do with demographic trends (and maybe changes in religiosity, if that happens). I strongly doubt assassinations of abortion doctors actually help move us towards the goal of changing the law. And more to the point, it undermines the authority of the state, which would be a very bad thing. The power over life and death should belong to the state, not to individuals (except in unusual circumstances, like when the state is totally immoral or ineffective).
Yes, but they’re effective at reducing abortions. You already lost the court battle, which is why this has turned into something closer to an actual battle.
Your side isn’t interested in changing the law. They’ve lost in court and changed their goal to simply making it hard or impossible for women to get abortions. They do that by playing games with clinic regulations and government funding and posting online kill lists and screaming at people going into health care facilities. None of those tactics change the law, but they do make it harder for people to get abortions. Thus you can get rid of abortion without changing the law. Terrorizing people plays an important role in this effort. Those tactics actually dovetail nicely with your ‘democracy sucks’ stance: if you think the system of government is invalid, why do you care about the law anyway? Of course you could also reduce abortions by making birth control more readily available and reducing poverty, but somehow that always slips down to the bottom of the list.
So, you arguing against yourself now? (Bolding mine.)Needs to be justified? Cost and benefits? Aquinas would agree to legal abortion.
You are welcome to your absolute principles, and I welcome you to keep them to yourself. Most people are able to adapt to new ideas. And interpret old ones into our lives.
Your principal seems to be that procreation must be done at any cost. I disagree.
The only violence is the anti-abortion group forcing a woman to have a child that she does not want. A child she cannot support and most likely becomes a burden on her, her family and society.
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing.
No neonatal care,
no day care,
no head start,
no school lunch,
no food stamps,
no welfare,
no nothing.
If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked."
The Abrahamic religions are primitive. Also, “various heresies of the above”? You’re a gifted writer, St. Clare.
You can be, but most atheists don’t.
There is simply no evidence for a soul, it simply doesn’t exist as far as anyone knows. Basing law on something that is utterly in the realm of imagination is a bit silly, don’t you think?
Also, a fetus is alive. So is a bacterium, or a cockroach. So is that piece of broccoli you had for lunch. So is the motorcycle rider in intensive care, whose head sort of ends right above his nose. A fetus is as much a person as someone who is brain-dead.
Sure, and barring sentimentality (look at the cute toes!) or superstition (they have a soul!), saying a mindless fetus is a person is a bit silly.
Not on point. Snyder is not a broad license to say and do whatever you like on a sidewalk, merely because your actions are tied to a matter of public concern. The Phelps “protests” at issue in Snyder were well away from the church where the memorial service occurred, in an area cordoned off by police. One of the facts relied on by SCOTUS was that the Phelps protest could neither be seen or heard from the funeral site. IME, abortion clinic protestors generally stand at the entrance to clinic parking lots and nothing prevents them from screaming into the faces of patients. These are protestors outside a clinic in Mississippi.
In many cases they are subject to the same harassment by anti-abortion protesters. This has intimidated some people from going to Planned Parenthood to get contraceptives which only leads to more abortions.
“Cite?” that fear of murderous pro-lifers is the reason there are very few doctors who still do late-term abortions. Being as this is Great Debates and not In My Humble Opinion, I expect you have a survey or poll or study to back your statement up.
Has there been a murder of a doctor who provides abortions since the 2009 murder of Dr. Tiller?
No, what backs his statement up is the weight of liberal support on the SDMB, which provides no condemnation for making things up, as long as you do it in service of a leftist cause. Fabricate something that hurts a leftist cause, and then the board suddenly becomes about “fighting ignorance.”
I confess I don’t see how that addresses anything. In Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the state’s interest in the fetus that will become a person is upheld, too, prior to viability. That’s why you pulled the phrase from there. Pointing out that that also happens in another case does not bring anything else to the discussion, unless, unlike Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Gonzales v. Carhart places the state’s interest above the mother’s interest. Otherwise, pointing out that the state has that interest when it’s been specifically judged as subordinate in the matter being discussed brings nothing useful to the debate.
Of course, it might well say something different, but a name and a summary aren’t very helpful for my purposes in determining that. I appreciate that for someone with legal knowledge, a simple title of an important case would bring all the relevant information to mind, but could I ask that you do more to cite what you say?
Also, I asked you another question that I missed an edit timeout on so had to write a new post for, so it’s easily missable. Does the “A fetus is a person” language that you used also come from Casey v. Planned Parenthood?
Well, you seem pretty confident about what it is I believe, so why don’t you take a guess?
I voted communist (well, SWP, technically) for my congressional election in 2006, for what it’s worth, and I don’t think my views have changed all that much since then.
If you think calling yourself a communist makes you any better, in my eyes, it does not. Communism is a brutal, disgusting system – much, much worse than abortion. (And this is coming from someone who considers herself a leftist)
Gonzales v. Carhart does place the state’s interest above the mother’s in upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003:
Sorry - I tend to assume in a heated discussion about legal aspects of abortion in the United States, that all participants are familiar with Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Stenberg v. Carhart / Gonzales v. Carhart as the seminal cases in the genre.
Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the federal law forbidding partial-birth abortion.
Nope. That’s from Bricker v. The Voting Population of The United States, unfortunately.
I’m not sure why you’ve cut this part out - other than to agree with the notion that some women may regret an abortion after they’ve had it. I don’t disagree with that notion, but it has nothing to do with placing the state’s interest about the mother’s. To the contrary, per the text, this point about regret is being made solely to introduce the idea that a doctor, seeking to avoid greater regret or guilt on behalf of the woman in question, may not outline in full the procedure that will take place. That then does lead on to where the state’s interest comes in - but how that interest plays is specified, and it is not a matter of prioritising state over the mother;
[QUOTE=SCOTUS in Gonazles v. Cashart]
It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. Casey, supra, at 873 (plurality opinion) (“States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning”). The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SCOTUS in Gonzales v. Cashart]
The Court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty. (citations omitted) This traditional rule is consistent with Casey, which confirms the State’s interest in promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy.
[/QUOTE]
But Casey does not indicate an area wherein the state’s interest subordinates the woman in question’s; all this quote does is say that it is consistent with the general view given in Casey that the state has an interest.
[QUOTE=SCOTUS in Gonzales v. Cathart]
Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception.
[/QUOTE]
This is simply a final summation of the rest of the case; it doesn’t indicate the state’s interest as being greater than the mother’s either.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sorry - I tend to assume in a heated discussion about legal aspects of abortion in the United States, that all participants are familiar with Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Stenberg v. Carhart / Gonzales v. Carhart as the seminal cases in the genre.
Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the federal law forbidding partial-birth abortion.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Happy to be educated, though!
Isn’t there a problem with arguing a point, then arguing a second point with a cite, the acceptance of which would invalidate the first? Casey would seem to not just be silent on the issue of fetus personhood, but clearly rejects the idea. If you support one idea on the basis that it is the legal finding, aren’t you obligated to support the other? Alternately, what standing should we give your citation of the legal findings of Carey, when you also reject them?
