SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Person Man]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

Indeed.

Infact, I think democrats should work towards exactly such a bill. Guaranteed right to abortion the first 15 weeks, no questions asked. States are then free to have whatever restrictions they wish after 15 weeks. I'm pretty sure that such a federal law would be widely popular.

That's 90%+ of all abortions that were happening last year.  Why would pro-lifers agree to that when they could have total state bans for decades?  I do think they would accept a federal 6 or 8 week law that would override total state bans, but it would have to be well short of 15.  Libertarian Republican influence would have to grow dramatically for this to work out.

There's also the matter of whether federal abortion legislation would even be constitutional.  Supporters would most likely have to argue that it's interstate commerce, but the conservative justices have generally sought to narrow the scope of the commerce clause for decades.  Roberts even joined in on this in the first Obamacare case, and there is an earlier precedent that a sexual assault case that occurred within one state was not interstate commerce.  In light of this, I'm not sure any of the 6 conservatives think abortion is interstate commerce that can be regulated at the federal level.  I'm particularly confident Gorsuch and Thomas don't.

There is effectively a zero chance SCOTUS would find the provision of abortion services outside the purview of interstate commerce - zero. This is on top of SCOTUS knowing that balkanized abortion laws is terrible public policy, and yes public policy does influence how SCOTUS interprets text.

I bet they would even say that abortion involves tools and products imported from elsewhere then therefore it is "interstate commerce" or the fact that people are dodging Alabama's personhood laws to go to Florida or Virginia.

[Pres Mike]

Indiana’s seven abortion clinics is opening back up with the recent court decision

How does that work? One would think nurses and secretaries would have got new jobs by now. They closed august 5th

[Skill and Chance]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

Indeed.

Infact, I think democrats should work towards exactly such a bill. Guaranteed right to abortion the first 15 weeks, no questions asked. States are then free to have whatever restrictions they wish after 15 weeks. I'm pretty sure that such a federal law would be widely popular.

That's 90%+ of all abortions that were happening last year.  Why would pro-lifers agree to that when they could have total state bans for decades?  I do think they would accept a federal 6 or 8 week law that would override total state bans, but it would have to be well short of 15.  Libertarian Republican influence would have to grow dramatically for this to work out.

There's also the matter of whether federal abortion legislation would even be constitutional.  Supporters would most likely have to argue that it's interstate commerce, but the conservative justices have generally sought to narrow the scope of the commerce clause for decades.  Roberts even joined in on this in the first Obamacare case, and there is an earlier precedent that a sexual assault case that occurred within one state was not interstate commerce.  In light of this, I'm not sure any of the 6 conservatives think abortion is interstate commerce that can be regulated at the federal level.  I'm particularly confident Gorsuch and Thomas don't.

There is effectively a zero chance SCOTUS would find the provision of abortion services outside the purview of interstate commerce - zero. This is on top of SCOTUS knowing that balkanized abortion laws is terrible public policy, and yes public policy does influence how SCOTUS interprets text.

I bet they would even say that abortion involves tools and products imported from elsewhere then therefore it is "interstate commerce" or the fact that people are dodging Alabama's personhood laws to go to Florida or Virginia.

I don't think it's a sure thing they would say abortion generally = interstate commerce.  However, there are things that either side of the abortion debate could do that would be much safer constitutionally.  For example, the Postal Service is an entirely federal entity, so it's likely that congress could mandate that abortion pills be sent free of charge to any address in the country, or alternatively to ban them from USPS entirely (the 19th century Comstock Laws did this for contraceptives).  It would also likely be possible to require abortion clinics to accept out-of-state patients and treat them free of charge, or alternatively to make it a federal crime to perform an abortion on a resident of a different state. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Indiana’s seven abortion clinics is opening back up with the recent court decision

How does that work? One would think nurses and secretaries would have got new jobs by now. They closed august 5th

They provide other services than abortions.

[Person Man]

Indiana’s seven abortion clinics is opening back up with the recent court decision

How does that work? One would think nurses and secretaries would have got new jobs by now. They closed august 5th

They provide other services than abortions.

Planned Parenthood even offers abstinence education.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776

I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

[It’s so Joever]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776

I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

LMAO it hit my front page news and I’m not even from there. Nice work Arizona GOP.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776

I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

LMAO it hit my front page news and I’m not even from there. Nice work Arizona GOP.

AZ is a voter initiative state, too.  For the time being, this is now the 2nd Biden state total ban to take effect after Wisconsin, and they were both the same scenario with revived 19th century laws.  Also Georgia has a 6 week ban, but notably with all of the modern exceptions. 

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573456934190997504

"use discretion"? Implying that there may be SOME prosecutions of rape victims?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776

I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

LMAO it hit my front page news and I’m not even from there. Nice work Arizona GOP.

Still better than Colorado's all-you-care to abort policies on demand with no restrictions.

[Cashew]

Could the Arizona abortion ban flip the state legislature?

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776

I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

LMAO it hit my front page news and I’m not even from there. Nice work Arizona GOP.

Still better than Colorado's all-you-care to abort policies on demand with no restrictions.

Forcing 10-year-old rape victims to give birth to their uncle's baby to own the libs.

[It’s so Joever]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776

I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

LMAO it hit my front page news and I’m not even from there. Nice work Arizona GOP.

Still better than Colorado's all-you-care to abort policies on demand with no restrictions.

Agreed, I tilt pro life on the issue, but I am a solid Dem on everything else. Bring the abortion bans on (especially in swing states this year)

[Hermit For Peace]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776

I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

LMAO it hit my front page news and I’m not even from there. Nice work Arizona GOP.

Still better than Colorado's all-you-care to abort policies on demand with no restrictions.

Forcing 10-year-old rape victims to give birth to their uncle's baby to own the libs.

At least it's not "killing babies."

[Person Man]

So a swing state now has social policy that polls about a raw 5% higher in popularity than a ban on interracial marriage. If they can sell this to the voters, they can probably sell that to voters too. That’s why Democrats need to get their shot together.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776
I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

This decision was paid for by Mark Kelly for US Senate

[Person Man]

Then again, it is still worth it to denazify the Pima County Superior Court.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Agreed, I tilt pro life on the issue, but I am a solid Dem on everything else. Bring the abortion bans on (especially in swing states this year)

What is your reason for tilting that way?

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776
I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

This decision was paid for by Mark Kelly for US Senate

Given than Fetterman and Laxalt are both likely leading, senate control could actually hinge on this.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776
I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

This decision was paid for by Mark Kelly for US Senate

Given than Fetterman and Laxalt are both likely leading, senate control could actually hinge on this.

I think it comes to Georgia the most. Kelly has been completely demolishing Masters in almost every way so far, and it looks unlikely to change, and this will only help him more, most likely. I am willing to call him favored.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776
I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

This decision was paid for by Mark Kelly for US Senate

Given than Fetterman and Laxalt are both likely leading, senate control could actually hinge on this.

I think it comes to Georgia the most. Kelly has been completely demolishing Masters in almost every way so far, and it looks unlikely to change, and this will only help him more, most likely. I am willing to call him favored.

Given recent special election turnout IMO all Warnock has to do is force a runoff and he wins. 

[It’s so Joever]

Agreed, I tilt pro life on the issue, but I am a solid Dem on everything else. Bring the abortion bans on (especially in swing states this year)

What is your reason for tilting that way?

So my entire philosophy on the whole subject is confusing to many and even to myself at times.

As of now I do believe life begins at conception. Call it a terribly outdated view. I do view all abortion as a form of murder, HOWEVER, in plenty of cases I see it as a form of murder which should be legally acceptable. I do think that before the heartbeat, it absolutely should be allowed in all cases. It’s basically a bargain that accepts murder…but that is the imperfect world we live in. Post heartbeat I believe that for a certain period of time women also should be allowed one for financial reasons so long as having a child is such a huge financial burden that can destroy lives if not prepared for it and leave a worse off household. After that period, I still support it in cases of rape, incest, and the mother’s life.
I don’t like this compromise, but there is no perfect solution. A full ban technically prevents the murder…but it screws so many women and literally kills some. The thing I am most shaky on is the allowed before heartbeat idea, but there does have to be some leeway. It’s a tough issue, and I hope someday we can create artificial wombs that a baby could be transferred to and avoid the serious problem completely.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

So my entire philosophy on the whole subject is confusing to many and even to myself at times.

As of now I do believe life begins at conception. Call it a terribly outdated view. I do view all abortion as a form of murder, HOWEVER, in plenty of cases I see it as a form of murder which should be legally acceptable. I do think that before the heartbeat, it absolutely should be allowed in all cases. It’s basically a bargain that accepts murder…but that is the imperfect world we live in. Post heartbeat I believe that for a certain period of time women also should be allowed one for financial reasons so long as having a child is such a huge financial burden that can destroy lives if not prepared for it and leave a worse off household. After that period, I still support it in cases of rape, incest, and the mother’s life.
I don’t like this compromise, but there is no perfect solution. A full ban technically prevents the murder…but it screws so many women and literally kills some. The thing I am most shaky on is the allowed before heartbeat idea, but there does have to be some leeway. It’s a tough issue, and I hope someday we can create artificial wombs that a baby could be transferred to and avoid the serious problem completely.

Thanks for what seems to me to be a genuine and candid response.

I don't know how much you are interested in discussing further, but if you are interested, I would like to ask you some follow up questions (essentially, as an exercise in the Socratic method). Some of the questions I will ask may at first glance seem silly, simplistic, or basic, but the benefit of asking basic questions is it forces us to think about our assumptions, and thereby tests how well our beliefs are founded. On a deeper glance, some of these seemingly silly/simplistic questions are (IMO) actually profound and important, and lie at the heart of the question of abortion (and also other important and related moral/ethical questions).

(also, if mods think this discussion needs to be moved to another thread, we could do so, but at least personally I think this is a broader subject than e.g. individual politics, and I think that anyone who expresses an opinion about Roe v Wade//Abortion should ask themselves the sorts of questions that I am going to raise). IMO whether you regard yourself as pro-choice or pro-life, you should at least ask yourself these sorts of questions and think twice about what answers you might make.


Before I ask my follow-up questions, I will say that although my own perspective is basically (in the end and in practical terms) pro-choice, I nevertheless think that a significant portion of some common pro-choice arguments are too blithely dismissive of the pro-life perspective and of the concerns that give rise to that perspective. Abortion is a very important moral/ethical question, which IMO demands serious reflection. And I think that if we don't give it that sort of serious reflection, we are doing a disservice to our humanity. Because, even if in the end one concludes that the pro-life perspective is not "the best perspective," it is nevertheless raising a question of (literally) life and death, and is asking us to consider what it means to be human and what sorts of moral duties (if any) we may have to other people, and under what circumstances. If this is not the sort of question that demands some serious and honest thought, it is hard to imagine what would be. Maybe there are some more important questions than that, but these certainly seem to me like profound and important questions, at least if we have any interest in thinking seriously about the world we live in and our place in it.

The second thing I will say is - regardless of the specifics of your position/opinion - I note with approval that you take some care to distinguish between what you consider to be morally acceptable and what you think should be legal. However, what is good about that is not simply that you distinguish them, but that you also seem to be taking both of those two different questions seriously, and recognizing that both are important questions to ask, which may or may not have the same answers.



With this in mind, here are my follow-up questions, arising from some things you said:

Question 1: What makes "life" valuable? (in the sense of what is it about "life" that makes it bad to murder "life")
Question 2: When does life end? Is this consistent with when life begins (and is it important if it is or not)?
Question 3: Do you merely place practical importance on the heartbeat, or do you think that heartbeats are directly/intimately connected to the moral question of abortion/murder, i.e. is a heartbeat what makes life valuable, and hence what makes it bad to murder life?



And here is some more detail on those questions and, how they came up in my mind based on what you wrote, and more specifically what I mean by asking those questions:

As of now I do believe life begins at conception. Call it a terribly outdated view. I do view all abortion as a form of murder

1) So you believe that life begins at conception, and you view abortion as a form of murder. However, I think there are some things implicit lying in between the first part (life begins at conception) and the second part (abortion is a form of murder) which you are not saying explicitly, which I would like to ask you about more explicitly (in order to make it easier to think about). Obviously, murder is something that we all think is bad. But why? It seems to me that the answer is, in some form or another, that there is something valuable about life, and this is lost/destroyed in the act of murder, and we think it is bad when that is lost. So my question is, what is it that makes life valuable? What is it that makes it wrong to kill some entity or other that is "life"? Does something (or someone) that is alive have to have any particular sorts of characteristics or properties of any sort in order for it to be morally wrong to kill (murder) it? If so, what are those characteristics?

2) Another follow-up arising from that first quote. If you believe that life begins at conception, when would you say life ends? Is there some sort of symmetry between the beginning of life and the end of life? Is your definition of life consistent with your definition of death (but also, does it matter if it is or not)?

I do think that before the heartbeat, it absolutely should be allowed in all cases. It’s basically a bargain that accepts murder…but that is the imperfect world we live in. Post heartbeat I believe that for a certain period of time women also should be allowed one for financial reasons so long as having a child is such a huge financial burden that can destroy lives if not prepared for it and leave a worse off household.

3) From this, it sounds fairly clear that you are placing some particular importance on heartbeats. My question is, are you talking about heartbeats for merely practical reasons, or are you talking about it because you think it is important for reasons that go beyond the merely practical? In practical terms, for legal purposes, if one thinks - as you have said you do - that there are some times before which abortion should be pretty much freely legal, and some other time after which it should be more restricted, then one has to have some sort of way to define the cut-off point. And maybe, for whatever reason, a heartbeat might be one such cutoff point, since it is something somewhat definable and somewhat measurable). However, it might be the case that you do not view having a heartbeat as merely that practical dividing line, but as being inherently something of particular moral value. I.e. maybe you consider having a heartbeat to be directly related to what makes life valuable, and hence what makes murder bad. Is that the case, or are you just talking about heartbeats in for practical reasons of measurement and having some sort of practical cutoff point?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

One other last thing -

So my entire philosophy on the whole subject is confusing to many and even to myself at times

emphasis added in the above.

IMO, anyone who does not confuse even themselves at least on occasion when thinking about their personal opinions/philosophies is not thinking carefully and seriously about what they believe. So IMO this is a good thing, I am glad you said that - if more people could say that sort of thing, IMO the world would be a better place!

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1573447684152651776
I believe the law allows abortions only to save the life of the mother, no rape or incest exceptions (although I'm not 100% certain of this).

This decision was paid for by Mark Kelly for US Senate

Given than Fetterman and Laxalt are both likely leading, senate control could actually hinge on this.

I think it comes to Georgia the most. Kelly has been completely demolishing Masters in almost every way so far, and it looks unlikely to change, and this will only help him more, most likely. I am willing to call him favored.

Given recent special election turnout IMO all Warnock has to do is force a runoff and he wins. 

I'm still not all that confident that either of those things would be guaranteed.