SCOTUS & the Texas abortion law

[IsntLifeFunny]

43 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

Sure, but when someone says something like you, nor I, nor others have any right to take away that choice from someone else, it bears questioning whether or not they believe that includes not preventing unwarranted third trimester abortions or other situations where it might make sense as a society to act on someone else's behalf.

I appreciate that. It’s definitely a good question.
 

I stay on the side of it’s between a doctor and the woman at all times. That system leads to tragic and fucked up situations, but for the most part that decision is made by a doctor to save a woman’s life or to get rid of a non-viable fetus.
 

I don’t think the government at any point should legislate that they have a right to a person’s body. Until born the fetus does not have rights because to do so would supersede the rights of the person already alive. That leads to a lot of moral dilemmas, but ethically it’s the correct choice. 

[abenjami]

10 minutes ago, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

The key word is "unwarranted". I assert that that determination is best left to the woman and her Dr. By the third trimester, there are almost certainly complex medical considerations. Legislators writing bans inevitably fail to account for all the individual circumstances, and make extremely difficult decisions even more painful.

Obviously there are many issues where society can and should override individual choice. Typically, this is to prevent individual choice from harming other people. Stopping drunk drivers, vaccinations, etc. Abortion is not one of these cases because a fetus is not a person.

 

I agree that determining whether or not a third trimester abortion is medically necessary or warranted is best left to the woman and her doctor.

 

But it sounds to me like you are in favor of third trimester abortions, warranted or not.

 

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, abenjami said:

 

I agree that determining whether or not a third trimester abortion is medically necessary or warranted is best left to the woman and her doctor.

 

But it sounds to me like you are in favor of third trimester abortions, warranted or not.

 

Who is the judge of warranted? As soon as you introduce the government into that idea you end up with an arbitrary system that is antithetical to the idea behind why law is supposed to exist in the first place. 

[abenjami]

3 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I stay on the side of it’s between a doctor and the woman at all times. That system leads to tragic and fucked up situations, but for the most part that decision is made by a doctor to save a woman’s life or to get rid of a non-viable fetus.
 

I don’t think the government at any point should legislate that they have a right to a person’s body. Until born the fetus does not have rights because to do so would supersede the rights of the person already alive. That leads to a lot of moral dilemmas, but ethically it’s the correct choice. 

 

I'm all for late abortions to save a woman's life or get rid of a non-viable fetus.  I also don't think the government should legislate that they have a right to a person's body.

 

But for me there's a line to be drawn at some point where a woman carries a fetus long enough that it's medically a person and then decides to terminate it for selfish not medically related reasons.  To me that's incredibly irresponsible and should not be protected.  The fetus may not technically have legal rights until birth but let's be honest our government and society poke their noses in lots of other issues because it makes sense for the whole and people support it so long as it follows their belief system.

[IsntLifeFunny]

I will say my philosophy when it comes to laws involving individuals and their actuons definitely tends to lean towards a libertarian notion of non-government intervention.
 

I don’t agree with their theories about money, borders, or regulation of business, but I do think the government should not be involved in people’s personal decisions unless they’re putting someone’s life in danger (DUI, assault, negligence, childcare…etc). I personally do not consider a fetus a person regardless of the stage of pregnancy if a medical doctor signs for the abortion. 
 

The difference would lie behind intent. If the intent was to purposefully destroy a life at the third trimester then I can see how that would be and should be illegal. Either way, that should not be up to the government to determine unless they can prove intent. 

[abenjami]

4 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Who is the judge of warranted? As soon as you introduce the government into that idea you end up with an arbitrary system that is antithetical to the idea behind why law is supposed to exist in the first place. 

 

The law doesn't have to be arbitrary.

 

The government is essentially the judge of warranted when it comes to other issues like use of force for self-defense, asylum, involuntary mental health commitments, and determining competency/conservatorships.  I see no reason to make a blanket exception for abortions.

 

Define the line and provide for exceptions that make sense.  Same as all laws.

[AJClown]

12 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

 

But it sounds to me like you are in favor of third trimester abortions, warranted or not.

 

You are mistaken. I am not "in favor" of third trimester abortions, or even abortions much earlier in the process.

I am merely in favor of a woman's right to make choices about her own body.

Please quote which of my statements gave you that impression.

[abenjami]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I personally do not consider a fetus a person regardless of the stage of pregnancy if a medical doctor signs for the abortion. 
 

The difference would lie behind intent. If the intent was to purposefully destroy a life at the third trimester then I can see how that would be and should be illegal. Either way, that should not be up to the government to determine unless they can prove intent. 

 

So if bongo signs for the abortion then it's warranted and there was no bad intent?

[abenjami]

Just now, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

You are mistaken. I am not "in favor" of third trimester abortions, or even abortions much earlier in the process.

I am merely in favor of a woman's right to make choices about her own body.

Please quote which of my statements gave you that impression.

 

Let me rephrase the question to help you understand.

 

Do you believe a woman should have the right to have a third trimester abortion even when there is no medically warranted reason for it?

[oldschool]

8 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

I'm all for late abortions to save a woman's life or get rid of a non-viable fetus.  I also don't think the government should legislate that they have a right to a person's body.

 

But for me there's a line to be drawn at some point where a woman carries a fetus long enough that it's medically a person and then decides to terminate it for selfish not medically related reasons.  To me that's incredibly irresponsible and should not be protected.  The fetus may not technically have legal rights until birth but let's be honest our government and society poke their noses in lots of other issues because it makes sense for the whole and people support it so long as it follows their belief system.

 

The vast majority of pro choice advocates agree late term abortions except for medical reasons shouldn't be allowed. That's not where the fight is evidenced by these dumbasses in Texas passing a heartbeat law which is where the 6 week mark comes from. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by oldschool

[abenjami]

Just now, oldschool said:

 

The vast majority of pro choice advocates agree late term abortions except for medical reasons shouldn't be allowed. That's not where the fight is evidenced by these dumbasses in Texas passing a heartbeat law which is where the 6 week mark comes from. 

 

I agree and haven't said otherwise.

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, abenjami said:

 

So if bongo signs for the abortion then it's warranted and there was no bad intent?

Is Bongo an OBGYN? I obviously meant a qualified medical doctor in that field. 
 

Also, yes if a doctor like Bongo posed as a qualified professional in the field signed off on it I would think legally speaking the criminal liability would be on them and not the woman. 
 

Here’s a hypothetical: you ban abortions unless medically necessary. At that point you’re attempting to prove a conspiracy between the doctor and woman for the procedure. I’m sure you can see how

messy that becomes. 

[Starkiller]

3 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Is Bongo an OBGYN? I obviously meant a qualified medical doctor in that field. 

Bongo is not certified, merely certifiable…

[abenjami]

2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Is Bongo an OBGYN? I obviously meant a qualified medical doctor in that field. 
 

Also, yes if a doctor like Bongo posed as a qualified professional in the field signed off on it I would think legally speaking the criminal liability would be on them and not the woman. 
 

Here’s a hypothetical: you ban abortions unless medically necessary. At that point you’re attempting to prove a conspiracy between the doctor and woman for the procedure. I’m sure you can see how

messy that becomes. 

 

Well yes, obviously that becomes very messy.  But banning them in the third trimester unless medically necessary is the same mess, just with a far lesser amount of cases.

 

 

 

 

[IsntLifeFunny]

20 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

Well yes, obviously that becomes very messy.  But banning them in the third trimester unless medically necessary is the same mess, just with a far lesser amount of cases.

 

 

 

 

It’s why I appreciate the conversation.
 

Messy is subjective. I think in some ways it’s similar to seatbelt laws. Telling an adult they can be held liable from the government if they don’t protect themselves is strange to me, but it’s been upheld and is the law. Adolescent in the car, sure as they’re not responsible for themself. 
 

Same with drug laws. How is it illegal for people to do drugs in their own homes not bothering anyone else? 
 

That is the grey area of law where the Supreme Court has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to say freedom exists but can be regulated as it comes to commerce. I can appreciate that even if I disagree with how it’s enforced.
 

This is the problem though with how the Supreme Court could ever federally enforce an abortion ban on this basis. What clause would they use to justify their legal reasoning? They would have to outright say a fetus is a person and therefore a woman does not have a right to their body.

 

I guess my point is I promise you it is going to be extremely tough to ever prosecute anyone if the law states unless medically necessary.

 

We are drifting into minutiae. We all know the real point of these laws is to push abortion laws to where they’re subjective and held by the states thereby gutting* federal abortion laws. The Texas law is fucking absolutely disgusting. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by IsntLifeFunny