Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[M.W.]

Isn't abortion and welfare inversely proportional? Less abortions = more welfare payments.. More abortions = less welfare. Force a poor woman to have a child she isn't equipped to care for and that becomes a problem for tax payers and brings another child into a toxic (sometimes) environment. Poor nutrition as a child coupled with mental/physical abuse often leads to adolescents and adults who have mental abnormalities.

So the GOP wants the child born into a horrible (normally) situation however would prefer the child to starve the old fashioned way after birth?

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 01:13 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Quick question for all of you: how far into a pregnancy do you think it is still ok to terminate a pregnancy?

Quote:In 2016, almost two-thirds (65.5%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.0%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. Fewer abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks’ gestation (7.7%) or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.2%). During 2007–2016, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (8.2%–9.0%). Among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, the percentage distributions of abortions by gestational age were highest among those performed at ≤6 weeks’ gestation (35.0%–38.4%).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/ss/ss6811a1.htm

The easiest thing to do would be to look at data of when abortions typically occur and, in the case of this 2016 CDC data, 91% of abortions occur at or before 13 weeks (right at the end of the first trimester), with only 7.7% occurring between weeks 14 and 20 and only 1.2% occurring after 21 weeks.

Now, based on this data, a conclusion you could possibly reach would be "Oh, well then we should ban all abortions after 13 weeks! That way, the vast majority of abortions won't be outlawed, but we can still protect human life as it approaches viability (currently, the accepted standard for viability, the time at which a baby would likely survive outside the womb with or without machine assistance, is 24 weeks)."

But I think that's the wrong way to look at this data.

My wife is currently pregnant with our second child. Our first was born early at 29 weeks and spent 53 days in the NICU before he came home with us. He's perfectly healthy now (2 and a half years old) and now my wife has been admitted to the hospital with similar symptoms to those that caused the first birth to occur early. She is currently at 27 weeks and 5 days. When she was first admitted, she was 23 weeks and 4 days. When she was first admitted, the doctors told us "If she's born before 24 weeks and is under 1 pound, we really can't do much for her. We can try to intubate her, but the odds of it working are low." So we needed her to stay pregnant until at least 24 weeks if we wanted good odds of our daughter surviving.

Those were the longest 3 days of my entire life.

The reason I bring this up is because those 3 days were just a microcosm of the entire pregnancy. In those previous 23 weeks, we had 7 ultrasounds to confirm these symptoms did not come back (they obviously eventually did) and every day in those 23 weeks felt so much longer than a week when she was not pregnant. 

I think there's this perception (among the right) that people will have "late term abortions" because, at some point, they just decide that they don't want the baby anymore. Or they changed their minds about being a mother. Or they just "didn't bother getting around to it" until now. I think this is either ignorant or malicious misinformation because, as anyone who has been pregnant or whose partner has been pregnant knows, time slows down when you're waiting for the baby to arrive. If someone simply did not want to have a baby, they would have aborted it in the early stages of the pregnancy, likely as soon as they could after finding out (assuming they have availability to abortion services).

The main reasons a person would have an abortion in the upper teens to low 20 weeks are fetal anomalies (such as if the baby has a fatal flaw or is not growing/will not survive if birthed) or maternal life endangerment. 


There may be a small contingent of people who get an abortion that high due to lack of access to an abortion or limited accessibility due to lack of funding or availability of an abortion clinic in their area but, of the 1.2%, I imagine these cases make up a small percentage of that. 


So, my takeaway from that data is not that we should set a boundary at 13 weeks (or 16 weeks or 18 weeks or whatever) because that would capture the majority of abortions. My takeaway is that we should intentionally not set a boundary because, if you're talking about an abortion that late in pregnancy, it's almost certainly because the mother's life is in danger or the baby is not going to survive.


In addition, I think funding abortion clinics would ensure that, among those rare occurrences of later term abortions, the even rarer occurrence due to lack of availability, would be even lower or perhaps completely eliminated.


If we set a boundary to when an abortion is allowed, then those rare instances of later term abortions could turn into maternal fatalities. And, while you could write in some contingencies, there is always the risk of edge cases. For example, if you wrote a bill that said "Abortion is illegal after 13 weeks, unless there is a fatal defect with the fetus or the mother's life is in danger" then you would then need to define what is and is not a "fatal defect" or what it means for the mothers life to be "in danger."

These are medical decisions that people are trying to legislate and it will inevitably result in cases that slip through the cracks. What if a doctor thinks a woman's pregnancy "may cause her death," they do whatever appeal these contingencies require, and are denied because the likelihood of her death (which would be a subjective estimate from the doctor anyway) is not considered high enough. 


That's why it is best to not set a legal limit on abortions. Setting a week limit on abortions likely does not prevent all that many abortions (maybe 1 to 2% of them), but in the cases that they would prevent, the abortions are likely the most medically necessary. So by setting a limit, you're endangering the mother without even really helping the babies.


Morally speaking, to answer your original question, I think the end of the first trimester is where it would be "Ok" to have an abortion just because you don't want to have a child, but that doesn't consider any of what I've said above, so it really holds no value, in my opinion.

[M.W.]

(05-03-2022, 09:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It is my opinion that with some exceptions, Democrat politicians love this and Republican politicians hate it. Re-election and money to get re-elected is what they want. The Republicans lose something they are going to fix some day. Democrats can now say they are going to legislate it, but they need seats and money. In 2024 they need to elect a President to appoint justices.

The timing does not help the republican party at all.  Not when the vast majority of the population would rather not have the Wade decision over turned.

[CKwi88]

(05-04-2022, 09:14 AM)M.W. Wrote: Isn't abortion and welfare inversely proportional?  Less abortions = more welfare payments.. More abortions = less welfare.  Force a poor woman to have a child she isn't equipped to care for and that becomes a problem for tax payers and brings another child into a toxic (sometimes) environment.  Poor nutrition as a child coupled with mental/physical abuse often leads to adolescents and adults who have mental abnormalities.

So the GOP wants the child born into a horrible (normally) situation however would prefer the child to starve the old fashioned way after birth?

I imagine Bels has put this much more eloquently in this thread or another, but the GOP has a well established track record of being at best pro-birth. Once out? They don't give a f*** about you. 

[Arturo Bandini]

George Carlin sums it up very well.

[Au165]

I've missed a bunch, so I'll respond to the two replies I had about settled law in one.

First, this is not the first time it has occurred (232 times prior which actually isn't that much relative to total cases) but may be one of the most controversial ones. There is a lot here, from justices saying in their confirmations it was already settled law, all the way to how those justices got onto the court to make such judgements, this has some contextual issues involved that are going eliminate any sort views of impartiality to the ruling.

To the comment "you just can't go around screaming settled law", you actually can and should in most cases. The issue with changing settled law here on party lines, which don't fool yourself this is partisan, during a divisive time is that it is simply going to radicalize "the other side". Stare decisis is what allows our country to function, if we now decide that settled law is simply something that stands until we get politically aligned courts together to change it we are in for a rough couple decades. Point being, this was potentially the most overtly political ruling to overturn settled law by SCOTUS of any of the 232 (maybe one or two others) which is why this one will be very different than any we have seen in at least 60 years.

If you don't think going after settled law on religious rulings expanding religious rights that have been controversial, 2A rulings, and so on aren't now squarely in play on a court shift the other way you are fooling yourself. The supreme court is now a weaponized tool of a two party political system like we have never seen and as I said, it's only going to get worse over the next few decades.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2022, 12:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: I've missed a bunch, so I'll respond to the two replies I had about settled law in one.

First, this is not the first time it has occurred (232 times prior which actually isn't that much relative to total cases) but may be one of the most controversial ones. There is a lot here, from justices saying in their confirmations it was already settled law, all the way to how those justices got onto the court to make such judgements, this has some contextual issues involved that are going eliminate any sort views of impartiality to the ruling.

To the comment "you just can't go around screaming settled law",  you actually can and should in most cases. The issue with changing settled law here on party lines, which don't fool yourself this is partisan, during a divisive time is that it is simply going to radicalize "the other side". Stare decisis is what allows our country to function, if we now decide that settled law is simply something that stands until we get politically aligned courts together to change it we are in for a rough couple decades. Point being, this was potentially the most overtly political ruling to overturn settled law by SCOTUS of any of the 232 (maybe one or two others) which is why this one will be very different than any we have seen in at least 60 years.

If you don't think going after settled law on religious rulings expanding religious rights that have been controversial, 2A rulings, and so on aren't now squarely in play on a court shift the other way you are fooling yourself. The supreme court is now a weaponized tool of a two party political system like we have never seen and as I said, it's only going to get worse over the next few decades.

This all reads like pure opinion, especially as you are resting your entire argument on your belief that "this was potentially the most overtly political ruling to overturn settled law by SCOTUS of any of the 232".  You can certainly have the opinion, but it's just that.  Although I will say that claiming this ruling is worse than any of the other 232, by far, is a very in the now thing to say and think.  After all, "our democracy is under threat" and the next election will be the "most important in our lifetime."

You'll please forgive me if I don't indulge in the hyperbole and instead deal with facts.

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 06:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Morally, I do not find it ok to terminate a pregnancy. Legally, there should be no line.

So, when a woman is fully dilated and the baby is just waiting to be pulled out of the mother, it's ok to kill it?

Wow. 

(05-04-2022, 06:36 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Circumstantial, as all things relating to individuals. What is acceptable for one may not be okay for another depending on any number of variables.

That's not an answer, that's a cop-out.

(05-04-2022, 09:19 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Morally speaking, to answer your original question, I think the end of the first trimester is where it would be "Ok" to have an abortion just because you don't want to have a child, but that doesn't consider any of what I've said above, so it really holds no value, in my opinion.

Ok. You think it's ok to abort then because it's the woman's body and her choice.

By the end of the the fifth week, the baby's heart is developing. 

Does a woman's body have two hearts?

By week 6, the spine develops.

Does a woman have two spines?

By week 8, the baby's nose forms.

Does a woman's body have two noses?

By week 9, the baby forms toes.

Does the woman's body have twenty toes?

I could go on, but you get the point. 

Those all happen in the first trimester, so if the answer to any of those is no, then how can you argue that it's her body and her choice?

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 01:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So, when a woman is fully dilated and the baby is just waiting to be pulled out of the mother, it's ok to kill it?

Wow. 
That's not an answer, that's a cop-out.

Ok. You think it's ok to abort then because it's the woman's body and her choice.

By the end of the the fifth week, the baby's heart is developing. 

Does a woman's body have two hearts?

By week 6, the spine develops.

Does a woman have two spines?

By week 8, the baby's nose forms.

Does a woman's body have two noses?

By week 9, the baby forms toes.

Does the woman's body have twenty toes?

I could go on, but you get the point. 

What if the answer to all of these questions is yes?

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 02:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: What if the answer to all of these questions is yes?

Answering my questions with another question is logical fallacy. 

Answer the questions.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 02:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Answer the questions.

Ok.

So YES to all the two spines two noses 20 toes thing.  Yes to all those...now what?  What's the follow up to that?

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 02:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok.

So YES to all the two spines two noses 20 toes thing.  Yes to all those...now what?  What's the follow up to that?

Really? 

Could you show some of them to me?

In 2017, there were something like 850,000 abortions and I have never seen a woman with two noses or two spines.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-04-2022, 02:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok.

So YES to all the two spines two noses 20 toes thing.  Yes to all those...now what?  What's the follow up to that?

what if a twenty toed mother is 5 weeks pregnant 4 days into the winter solstice?  WHAT THEN NATE!

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 02:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I have never seen a woman with two noses or two spines.

If you've ever seen a woman who has given birth within 8 months of you seeing her, you have.

[Dill]

(05-04-2022, 12:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: If you don't think going after settled law on religious rulings expanding religious rights that have been controversial, 2A rulings, and so on aren't now squarely in play on a court shift the other way you are fooling yourself. The supreme court is now a weaponized tool of a two party political system like we have never seen and as I said, it's only going to get worse over the next few decades.

Well at his confirmation Alito loudly affirmed that judges' should not let their personal beliefs sway their judgment. And they should not be swayed by popular noise--what "the people" want--and just follow the law in perfect neutrality. So all those justices selected by the Federalist Society and deftly engineered away from Obama and Biden for Trump nomination--we should assume their conclusions are based on law alone. 

That their legal theory led them to a completely neutral reading of Roe, which happened to conform to their private beliefs, is clearly more coincidence than anything. This new neutrality may, as you say, "shift the court the other way" on a number of important issues, but I firmly believe that future rulings will be just as neutral as this one. The era of activist judges is OVER!

I'm reminded of all the contention over new voting rights laws in various states, which are similarly neutral and don't mention race at all.

Why do Dems have to politicize everything? 

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 02:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If you've ever seen a woman who has given birth within 8 months of you seeing her, you have.

I shook hands with my sister the day she gave birth and she only had five fingers on that hand and I could see that she only had five fingers on her other hand, so no I haven't.

She also only had one nose.

Here's another one: does a woman have two sets of DNA?

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 02:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I shook hands with my sister the day she gave birth and she only had five fingers on that hand and I could see that she only had five fingers on her other hand, so no I haven't. She also only had one nose.

Not to get off topic here, but you shaking hands with your sister the day she gave birth just seems like an odd interaction.  Anyways, you perceive that she only had 10 fingers and one nose, doesn't make it so.

(05-04-2022, 02:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Here's another one: does a woman have two sets of DNA?

A pregnant woman does, yes,

[Dill]

(05-04-2022, 02:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I shook hands with my sister the day she gave birth and she only had five fingers on that hand and I could see that she only had five fingers on her other hand, so no I haven't.

She also only had one nose.

Here's another one: does a woman have two sets of DNA?

Well how many spines did she have? 

Your silence here speaks VOLUMES!  

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 01:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So, when a woman is fully dilated and the baby is just waiting to be pulled out of the mother, it's ok to kill it?

No, they'd likely just have the woman give birth, inducing labor if necessary. If the baby can survive outside of the womb, potentially involving the NICU if its early, then it will.

Quote:Ok. You think it's ok to abort then because it's the woman's body and her choice.


By the end of the the fifth week, the baby's heart is developing. 

Does a woman's body have two hearts?

By week 6, the spine develops.

Does a woman have two spines?

By week 8, the baby's nose forms.

Does a woman's body have two noses?

By week 9, the baby forms toes.

Does the woman's body have twenty toes?

I could go on, but you get the point. 

Those all happen in the first trimester, so if the answer to any of those is no, then how can you argue that it's her body and her choice?

The baby's body is clearly not the same as the woman's body.

But where do all those baby's body parts reside?

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 02:50 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Where do all those baby's body parts reside?

Hopefully not in Mexico!