The overturning of Roe v Wade

[ainsworth74]

I swear as the years go by Handmaid's Tale feels less and less like fiction but just history waiting to happen...

Roe isn't perfect, but you should never make perfect the enemy of good enough.

Quite, it clearly is something that should be on a legislative footing and perhaps Roe did overreach but unfortunately the Republican party seem to have dissolved into a gibbering wreck of a party whose primary objective increasingly seems to be to make sure that they stack the courts at all levels full of their own appointees and make sure that they block any legislation proposed by Democrats and then when they are in power try and avoid passing any legislation of their own unless it involves kickbacks to their "side". All whilst pushing any and all "culture war" buttons that they can find to rile their base up and make sure they keep voting against their own interests. This makes it very hard for any governance to actually happen. Which isn't to say that the Democrats are a principled saintly bunch but they clearly aren't but they don't seem to have devolved to the same degree that the Republicans have.

As long as this logjam continues the reality is that it will be almost impossible for anything to fundamentally change and the US will continue to seemingly slowly implode due to its own contradictions as it seems focussed on inane issues, seeing to "win" whatever the topic of the day is and nothing actually important (like abortion or gun control) will be discussed properly and seriously as everyone seems to retreat their extreme bubbles despite the only polling available suggesting that the extreme views on both sides are out of step with the majority which tends to pick a middle course (i.e. some limitation on abortion such as time limits but no outright ban or right to an abortion at any time in a pregnancy).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Right's obsession with abortion is a relatively recent thing - as late as the 1970s the likes of Billy Graham said words to the effect of "life begins at the first breath". It became a wedge issue for them when they realised that being pro-segregation was a losing position. They recognised that restricting access to abortion was an effective way to keep the 'undesirables' in their place (rich, white women will always be able to hop on a flight to get around bans).

That seems quite a dramatic characterisation of the motives of those on the anti-abortion side. Personally I very much support the right to an abortion, but at the same time I can understand why people who see it as murdering an unborn child would believe what they do. Is it not more plausible that the USA Right are opposed to abortion because they genuinely believe abortion is wrong? I'm not sure why we need to invent alternative motives for their beliefs?

As for it being a relatively recent thing that only emerged after the 1970s... would that not be because, prior to Roe v Wade, there was no reason for abortion to be an issue on the Right, and that it was because of Roe v Wade effectively changing the law in a way many on the Right didn't agree with that it became an issue for them?

The problem with mixing up abortion with the issue of segregation is that up until the 1960s - as I understand it - it was Southern *Democrats*, not Republicans, who tended to be pro-segregation.

 

[najaB]

That seems quite a dramatic characterisation of the motives of those on the anti-abortion side.

I am talking about those in power, not those who genuinely believe in what they're saying.

As for it being a relatively recent thing that only emerged after the 1970s... would that not be because, prior to Roe v Wade, there was no reason for abortion to be an issue on the Right, and that it was because of Roe v Wade effectively changing the law in a way many on the Right didn't agree with that it became an issue for them?

No. It really wasn't an issue that they considered at all before the 70s.

Consider the below chart from this article: https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18295513/abortion-2020-roe-joe-biden-democrats-republicans



In 1975 there was barely any daylight between Democratic and Republican views on abortion. They have been moving further and further apart since, simply because the Republican party knows that it is an emotive issue, and people can be manipulated more effectively through appeals to the heart rather than the head.

To quote another passage from the article:

In the 1970s, politicians’ views on abortion didn’t break down along neat party lines. While Republican President Gerald Ford opposed Roe v. Wade, first lady Betty Ford was an abortion-rights supporter and Ford’s vice president Nelson Rockefeller presided over the repeal of abortion restrictions in New York, as Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel explained in their book Before Roe v. Wade. In Congress, Republicans voted against abortion at about the same rate as Democrats.

That didn’t start to change until the ’70s. During his 1972 presidential campaign, Republican Richard Nixon began staking out anti-abortion positions as part of a strategy to appeal to Catholic voters and other social conservatives. After Nixon won the election and a majority of Catholic votes, Republican strategists began using the same tactics in Congress, as well as forging coalitions with evangelical groups around opposition to abortion.

And this highlights the main thing that a lot of people miss about the abortion debate in America - it's not about abortion. It's about power and control. The GOP realised that they were onto winning issues with abortion, illegal immigration and the war on drugs and used them to wrest control of the apparatus of power during the 80's and 90's. Which is why you'll see a party that fights against reproductive rights and also against providing healthcare.

They had a similar volte-face where gun rights are concerned. As an example, the GOP and NRA were virtually indistinguishable in the 1990s and both clearly were opposed to any form of gun control as a infringement of Second Amendment rights. However, the NRA was actually pro-gun control in its earlier years.

In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.

The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

Source: https://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

The NRA position was largely the same right through until the late 1960s/early 1970s. The key event was a botched ATF raid on a NRA member's house in which he was shot, but it can't escape notice that the shift in their position coincided with a big changes in American society.

The problem with mixing up abortion with the issue of segregation is that up until the 1960s - as I understand it - it was Southern *Democrats*, not Republicans, who tended to be pro-segregation.

Indeed, they were. However the party had their Damascene conversion in the 1960s, with the Kennedy/Johnson administrations forcing through the Civil Rights Act and sending in troops to back it up. A lot of southern Democrats left the party and moved to the GOP.

The focus on abortion formed part of the Southern Strategy enacted by the GOP from the 1970s onwards. The south is, compared to the North, more deeply religious and so that gives them another hook on power.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a general rule, anyone who doesn’t recognise abortion is a terrible moral dilemma with no perfect outcomes doesn’t really have a place in the debate. Absolutists on either side who proclaim absolute moral confidence in their position are suspect.

The best solution for any intractable moral dilemma like abortion is to entrust the individual with the choice, and recognise that however women choose to use that choice is a matter for them.

 

[Giugiaro]

Why are judges appointed by the executive and legislative power, and for life?

For instance, in Portugal, the Supreme Court has judges appointed by vote from lower instances and the Constitutional court has 10 elected by a two-thirds vote in parliament and three elected by lower instances.
They have a finite, non-reelectable term of 5 and 9 years, respectively.

 

[najaB]

Why are judges appointed by the executive and legislative power, and for life?

The idea was that lifetime appointments would make the judiciary truly independent of the other two branches - no need to worry about making decisions that piss either branch off as there's nothing they can do about it, short of impeachment. Of course, that was under the assumption that only truly qualified people would be appointed to the Supreme Court, and that they would be older (and life expectancy was lower) so that "lifetime" meant 10 to 15 years.

 

[Cantab26]

That may be the case, however the laws being proposed go way beyond that - e.g. the 15-week limit imposed by the latest Texas law.

The Mississippi law to which the case relates has a 15 week limit and the majority of Americans support it as far as I am aware from the reported polling.

All of this is separate to the question of whether Roe and Casey are good law which, quite frankly, they are not. Regardless of one’s policy preference.

And the fact that some of the laws provide no exception for cases of rape or incest!

Why are the circumstances of conception relevant? “Something horrible happened to you so kill the baby” doesn’t quite sit right.

And realistically, the number of abortions which take place in these circumstances is vanishingly rare. We are really talking about whether abortion should be permitted as a means of quasi-contraception.

Or the laws which make no exception for ectopic pregnancies!
This is not morally equivalent under the principle of double effect and, again, is vanishingly rare.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty has changed, calling capital punishment “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and deeming it “inadmissible” in all cases.

The latest edition of the Catechism has to be read in the context of several hundred years of magisterial Church teaching.

To put the matter in a nutshell, whilst the infliction of capital punishment is not inherently contrary to the teaching of the Church the advisability of carrying it out in a given case is a matter of prudential judgment. And in modern circumstances it is highly unlikely to be advisable, but that does not make it inherently immoral and it does not change Church doctrine on the matter.

That seems quite a dramatic characterisation of the motives of those on the anti-abortion side. Personally I very much support the right to an abortion, but at the same time I can understand why people who see it as murdering an unborn child would believe what they do. Is it not more plausible that the USA Right are opposed to abortion because they genuinely believe abortion is wrong? I'm not sure why we need to invent alternative motives for their beliefs?

A reasonable and proportionate comment at last!

This is why analysis such as this rather misses the point:

The best solution for any intractable moral dilemma like abortion is to entrust the individual with the choice, and recognise that however women choose to use that choice is a matter for them.

i.e. if abortion necessarily entails the killing of an innocent human being then it is readily understandable why people might form the view that the best solution is not necessarily to entrust the matter to the mother given that the baby is also ‘in the mix’.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is why analysis such as this rather misses the point:

i.e. if abortion necessarily entails the killing of an innocent human being then it is readily understandable why people might form the view that the best solution is not necessarily to entrust the matter to the mother given that the baby is also ‘in the mix’.

That’s a disingenuous comment given that a significant part of the debate is disagreement about whether a foetus (and even foetuses at certain ages in the womb) constitute a human being with the same rights as a baby breathing and living independently outside the mother. In fact, many will argue that is the central issue.

Personally I consider society has a moral duty to the unborn, but I do not have a moral *conviction* on this, nor would I seek to impose this particular aspect of my personal morals on other people with the force of the law. Others would, and I respect the position that “abortion is murder and should be illegal” as being at least morally consistent, even if it is not something I would ever vote to punish women for.

I am very familiar with Catholic teaching on abortion and respect the viewpoint. Your post also represents the most morally *consistent* and coherent treatment of the issue. I also respect your right to advocate that the law should change to prevent what you see as a moral crime. After all, many issues don’t affect us directly. Gang warfare over drugs in London, street prostitution, the treatment of the mentally disabled in residential care - none of those things will affect me directly, but I do think you and I have a right to express our views on whether we want society to tolerate things we regard as morally abhorrent.

I am only saying I personally do not have such a strong conviction on the issue that I would wish to remove choice from the pregnant woman under penalty of law.

 

[najaB]

The Mississippi law to which the case relates has a 15 week limit and the majority of Americans support it as far as I am aware from the reported polling.

They don't. At least not those who possess uteruses and understand that 15 weeks is way too early for a woman to (a) recognise that she is pregnant; (b) make the decision to terminate the pregnancy; and (c) arrange for the procedure.

Why are the circumstances of conception relevant? “Something horrible happened to you so kill the baby” doesn’t quite sit right.

And realistically, the number of abortions which take place in these circumstances is vanishingly rare.

If you went out today and someone stabbed you, would you be happy if the doctor said "Sorry, you have to keep that knife in you for the next nine months"?

And the "vanishingly rare" argument doesn't hold water. If it happens once, it's happened one too many times!

 

[brad465]

Why are judges appointed by the executive and legislative power, and for life?

For instance, in Portugal, the Supreme Court has judges appointed by vote from lower instances and the Constitutional court has 10 elected by a two-thirds vote in parliament and three elected by lower instances.
They have a finite, non-reelectable term of 5 and 9 years, respectively.

The US might claim to be a prominent democracy, but they have an abundance of flaws in their system, which includes the Supreme Court appointment and terms' procedures (others include the electoral college voting system and how each state has 2 Senators despite very wide population variations).

 

[najaB]

The US might claim to be a prominent democracy, but they have an abundance of flaws in their system, which includes the Supreme Court appointment and terms' procedures (others include the electoral college voting system and how each state has 2 Senators despite very wide population variations).

Those were both deliberate decisions taken to address the particular circumstances of the time. The choice of giving each state the same number of senators was supposed to stop the small states from being rendered irrelevant due to their smaller populations. Without it, the USA would, even more that today, consist of the North East, California and "the rest".

 

[Yew]

All of this is separate to the question of whether Roe and Casey are good law which, quite frankly, they are not. Regardless of one’s policy preference.

That is fair comment, I would prefer if this was a clear matter of primary legislation.

Why are the circumstances of conception relevant? “Something horrible happened to you so kill the baby” doesn’t quite sit right.

Because it is a bundle of cells, and not a baby? Why should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, particularly if the conception was in any way involuntary.

i.e. if abortion necessarily entails the killing of an innocent human being then it is readily understandable why people might form the view that the best solution is not necessarily to entrust the matter to the mother given that the baby is also ‘in the mix’.

Is a bundle of cells in a womb a baby, if it is, perhaps we should immediately remove it and see how it fares? And on the subject of Catholicism, I would point you to catholic concept of original sin, if for some reason we consider the teachings of a primitive society relevant on this matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2022 ==

Those were both deliberate decisions taken to address the particular circumstances of the time. The choice of giving each state the same number of senators was supposed to stop the small states from being rendered irrelevant due to their smaller populations. Without it, the USA would, even more that today, consist of the North East, California and "the rest".

And are these circumstances still relevant, what makes someone living in the country worth more than someone in a city?

 

[najaB]

And are these circumstances still relevant, what makes someone living in the country worth more than someone in a city?

I'm not saying that they do, just explaining that it is a feature rather than a bug.

The only way to have true democracy in a continent of such extremes would be for it to be split into separate countries.

 

[The Ham]

Is a bundle of cells in a womb a baby, if it is, perhaps we should immediately remove it and see how it fares?

The problem with such an argument is that it can be used to justify whatever you'd like just by taking another step.

Taking it a step further, a child is born and taken from it's mother let's see how it copes with no support. Yes it would survive longer, but still not very long.

If you left a 2 year old, or even a 4 year old, they will survive longer and longer than the previous sample, but ultimately they would die.

Of course it's not just true at the very young, it can be true of the old. Should we, when the elderly become a burden, remove them from society and see how they get on? Again ultimately they'll die.

What about those with medical needs? Should we remove a diabetic from their insulin, someone with asthma from their inhaler, or a heart attack patient from their medication and see how long they live for (although to be fair the US already does do this through the significant costs for medical treatment).

It shouldn't be up to third parties (like ourselves) to dictate what happens, rather those who are involved (primarily those who are pregnant) to have the option.

Now that doesn't mean that others can't provide support to try and explain the options, not should it mean that others couldn't provide support during the months (maybe even years) after the choice is made. However again, it should be down to the person in the situation to make a choice as to what support they take through what route.

Although there would have to be safeguards in place so that those supporting women to keep their child aren't manipulating them.

I know a couple who had a child who was discovered to be "incompatible with life" most would have had an abortion, they chose not to. Their son died after about 100 hours (which was way longer than anyone expected). Now for them they wouldn't do it any other way, however for the majority they wouldn't want to do that (and if there's older children trying to explain what's going on could have been difficult).

The "incomplete with life" diagnoses was made at the 12 week scan, if no abortions are aloud after 15 weeks, that's a fairly quick decision required, especially if there's a delay in getting that scan.

Yes such cases are rare, however (especially in the US with a population of 330 million) with large numbers even a 1 in 1.8 million chance would still be about twice a year. However, in the US there's circa 32,000 pregnancies a year from rape (or about 8% of all pregnancies). As such what maybe rare could still happen quite a lot, especially over (say) a 5 year period.

 

[Yew]

What about those with medical needs? Should we remove a diabetic from their insulin, someone with asthma from their inhaler, or a heart attack patient from their medication and see how long they live for (although to be fair the US already does do this through the significant costs for medical treatment).

I will inform my diabetic friend that next time he needs to inject he should find the nearest woman and climb into her womb.

 

[The Ham]

I will inform my diabetic friend that next time he needs to inject he should find the nearest woman and climb into her womb.

How do you get that from what I said? I was saying that we have to be careful about arguing about "see how well something survives by removing something key to survival" as some (and certainly not me) could use then to argue various other examples (especially where there's a cost to society) where the end result would be the same, although just a bit slower.

Yes I may have taken the argument further than most would, however that was only to prove the point.

The point I was making was that those involved should have the choice. Taking the example given, if climbing inside a women's womb was a viable treatment for diabetes then it shouldn't only be your friend that needs to have the choice but also the women.

In theory it should be possible to choose to have pig insulin to treat diabetes, however I doubt that anyone would opt for that due to the increased cost, especially given that production of it isn't widespread anymore and isn't available on the NHS (so would have to be a private prescription).

However fortunately the UK provides diabetics with all their insulin without charging for any of their prescriptions (including non diabetic medications), which I hope few would suggest this is the wrong way to go about it. In part because, much as many may think that abortion isn't ideal we are (in general) a compassionate country and want the best for our citizens and so are willing to allow people the choice where otherwise not having the choice could cause harm or suffering (even if the number of cases for each potential example is fairly small, as combined and across a large enough population, they soon all add up).

 

[birchesgreen]

However, in the US there's circa 32,000 pregnancies a year from rape (or about 8% of all pregnancies). As such what maybe rare could still happen quite a lot, especially over (say) a 5 year period.

That is "rare" but is also a lot (and maybe more than some people think?) The real figure is probably quite a bit higher too.

 

[Yew]

How do you get that from what I said? I was saying that we have to be careful about arguing about "see how well something survives by removing something key to survival" as some (and certainly not me) could use then to argue various other examples (especially where there's a cost to society) where the end result would be the same, although just a bit slower.

Is that what women are now, "some thing key to survival"?

There is a vast difference between a couple of insulin pens, and a human being.

 

[Cantab26]

That’s a disingenuous comment given that a significant part of the debate is disagreement about whether a foetus (and even foetuses at certain ages in the womb) constitute a human being with the same rights as a baby breathing and living independently outside the mother. In fact, many will argue that is the central issue.

Whilst I do not appreciate or accept the accusation that it the comment is disingenuous, you are quite right that this is the central philosophical issue.

The problem is that if we want to draw a line somewhere between conception and birth what standard are we to apply?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2022 ==

If you went out today and someone stabbed you, would you be happy if the doctor said "Sorry, you have to keep that knife in you for the next nine months"?

Probably not, but a knife is not morally equivalent so this analogy is not valid.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2022 ==

Because it is a bundle of cells, and not a baby?

When does ‘a bundle of cells’ become a baby?

Why should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, particularly if the conception was in any way involuntary.

But there is no moral fault on the part of the unborn child which would necessarily be destroyed. If an unborn child is a human being then it should not be only a question of what the mother wants or feels.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2022 ==

And on the subject of Catholicism, I would point you to catholic concept of original sin, if for some reason we consider the teachings of a primitive society relevant on this matter.

I am not going to derail this thread by going down this rabbit hole, but I would be surprised if you could recite what the Church actually teaches about original sin and what it means in the context of unborn or very young children.

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst I do not appreciate or accept the accusation that it the comment is disingenuous, you are quite right that this is the central philosophical issue.

The problem is that if we want to draw a line somewhere between conception and birth what standard are we to apply?

Yes, quite. Any line in the middle of conception seems naturally arbitrary. It is this which causes me the most discomfort and vacillation on the issue. I steer clear of religious teaching on the matter but consider those who claim to have arrived at a *firm* position by secular *reason* to be he most suspect of all.

 

[najaB]

Probably not, but a knife is not morally equivalent so this analogy is not valid.

It is. It is something in your body that you didn't want there, which is going to significantly impact on your life, cause you inconvenience at best and great pain at worst, and have impacts on your health both physical and mental for years, even after it's removed.

 

[Cantab26]

It is. It is something in your body that you didn't want there, which is going to significantly impact on your life, cause you inconvenience at best and great pain at worst, and have impacts on your health both physical and mental for years, even after it's removed.

It is not morally equivalent. The knife can be removed and destroyed utterly without any inherent moral issues arising.

And all of those impacts on the mother may well be true, but the question is whether that justifies the destruction of a baby which is not morally culpable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2022 ==

Yes, quite. Any line in the middle of conception seems naturally arbitrary. It is this which causes me the most discomfort and vacillation on the issue. I steer clear of religious teaching on the matter but consider those who claim to have arrived at a *firm* position by secular *reason* to be he most suspect of all.

I’m not sure I’d go so far as to treat ‘secular’ positions as necessarily suspect.

I don’t think it would be unreasonable for someone to say: “I don’t know where we draw an arbitrary line between conception and birth so on a precautionary basis we should plump for conception.”

And that might well be a firmly held position without any need for recourse to religious teaching on the matter.

 

[najaB]

And all of those impacts on the mother may well be true, but the question is whether that justifies the destruction of a baby which is not morally culpable.

Instead, it's better to force the woman to continue to suffer the rape for nine months.

I don’t think it would be unreasonable for someone to say: “I don’t know where we draw an arbitrary line between conception and birth so on a precautionary basis we should plump for conception.”

It wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to hold that opinion. The opinion is, however, unreasonable and unsupported by any scientific fact.

 

[Cantab26]

Instead, it's better to force the woman to continue to suffer the rape for nine months.

That is the trade-off. The problem is that people disagree on where to strike that balance.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to hold that opinion. The opinion is, however, unreasonable and unsupported by any scientific fact.

It is not an unreasonable opinion unless you would care to elaborate further on why you characterise it as such?

For example, what is a “scientific fact”?

 

[najaB]

It is not an unreasonable opinion unless you would care to elaborate further on why you characterise it as such?

Because anything that can be described as a 'person' who would be deserving of the human rights protections afforded them doesn't exist until cerebral cortex development towards the end of the second trimester. There isn't even any form of electrical activity in the nervous system until the fifth or sixth week post-conception.

 

[Cantab26]

Because anything that can be described as a 'person' who would be deserving of the human rights protections afforded them doesn't exist until cerebral cortex development towards the end of the second trimester. There isn't even any form of electrical activity in the nervous system until the fifth or sixth week post-conception.

So, on those assumptions, where do you draw the line and why?

 

[najaB]

So, on those assumptions, where do you draw the line and why?

Based on those facts, I would say that the UK's limit of 24 weeks is probably about right. If you want to operate on a 'precautionary basis' then 20 weeks.

 

[Cantab26]

Based on those facts, I would say that the UK's limit of 24 weeks is probably about right. If you want to operate on a 'precautionary basis' then 20 weeks.

Why not 23 weeks or 25 or 19 or 21?

 

[ainsworth74]

Why not 23 weeks or 25 or 19 or 21?

You have to draw a line somewhere and with current medical science 24 weeks is basically the earliest that a baby could be born and have a chance of surviving. I'm sure some that are born early survive at 23 weeks, and some die at 25 weeks but in general terms 24 weeks is the marker between being born early and surviving with massive medical intervention and dying even with massive medical intervention.

From the NHS:

Your baby at 24 weeks​

By the time you're 24 weeks pregnant, the baby has a chance of survival if they are born. Most babies born before this time cannot live because their lungs and other vital organs are not developed enough.

The care that can now be given in baby (neonatal) units means more and more babies born early do survive. But for babies born around this time, there are increased risks of disability.

24 weeks pregnant guide - Best Start in Life - NHS

Our week-by-week pregnancy guide is full of essential information. From staying fit in pregnancy to advice on your maternity rights, you'll find it all here.

www.nhs.uk

 

[najaB]

Why not 23 weeks or 25 or 19 or 21?

As @ainsworth74 says - 24 weeks is the earliest that a baby has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb. And that's with massive medical intervention, and a high chance of permanent disability as a result.