ha!.. oh… haha! (that’s 5 letters)
1 Like
Your bewilderment is not unjustified. The US legal system has a great number of complex limitations. Overall it is actually very good at getting things done and generally effecting justice on a broad scale (though obviously its implementation with minorities on a granular scale leaves much to be desired). But this is one of those areas where the system’s generally-good limitations tend to dictate the framework of any ruling.
The Supreme Court has a tremendous amount of power, but that power is very narrow. It is an appellate court, which means it can only rule on questions of law brought from the ruling of a lower court. For example, if you sue your neighbor for cutting down your tree and you lose because the judge said you failed to prove he cut down your tree in the first place, you can’t appeal to the next-highest court merely because you disagree with the ruling. In order to appeal, you’d have to argue that the judge made a specific legal mistake, like improperly excluding evidence or failing to enforce a subpoena. The higher up you try to go, the more narrow the requirements for appeal.
The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review – the ability to strike down laws (or executive actions) which it deems unconstitutional. But to get to the Supreme Court, you’ve got to follow a chain of appeals all the way up…and even then, the Court will only rule on the specific issue that is being appealed. The Supreme Court is actually very sparing with its powers, declaring at numerous points that it simply does not have the jurisdiction to enter a ruling on a particular question.
So it is not really possible for the Supreme Court to ever hear a case in which two different fundamental rights are weighed against each other. In order for judicial review to be invoked, there must be a consideration of the constitutionality of some state action, so any case reaching the Supreme Court where judicial review is a possibility would already be pitting a state action against a fundamental right.
In order for SCOTUS to enshrine an “unborn right to life” at all, it would have to have a very, very odd set of circumstances. For example, suppose that a law was passed which stated frozen embryos, once abandoned by their donors/parents, had to be turned over to laboratories to further scientific research. In theory, a religious hospital could attempt to have such a law overturned by deliberately violating it and then appealing their conviction repeatedly until they reached SCOTUS. Even in such a case, however, SCOTUS would be more likely to strike down the law on the argument that it infringed on religious liberty with no compelling state interest; it would most likely not rule on the potential “infringement of life” with respect to the embryos since the embryos would not be the appellants.
A constitution can certainly ban something by fiat; examples include the 13th and 18th amendments. So “abortion is banned” is a valid constitutional amendment. It wouldn’t work, of course, because “abortion” is not a thing; the specifics and situations under which certain procedures would become illegal demand much more targeted language which is really not suitable for a constitutional amendment.
“The right to life includes the unborn” might make it slightly easier for the state to prove a compelling interest, but it would still be subject to strict scrutiny.
If Kansasians (or Americans at large) wanted to overturn this ruling (or Roe) by amendment, they would merely need to add, “This constitution shall not be construed to protect the rights of someone in contemplation of the induced demise of any person following conception.” Simple.
2 Likes
No this is wrong… if that was true then any state could say a child in the womb could not be aborted as , 1, its a human being, 2, it can’t be killed.
I don’t mean about roe vs wade.
i just mean the supreme court can trump any state court inventing a abortion right.
Just kansa folks need to take it to the supreme court .
it all comes down to overthrowing roe vs wade and demanding this issue is for the people to decide. it was nor decided by courts . it was not decided by constitutions made in the past or the present.
i’m sure pro lifers in kansaa deny the kansa people EVER put abortion as a right in thier constitution.
instead its liberal incompetent judges inventing this.
take 'em to court.
Presently each woman in the United States has the right to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy. This right can’t be up for vote.
2 Likes
The decision of the Kansas Supreme Court is not subject to appeal. SCOTUS doesn’t care about how the Kansas Supreme Court interpreted the Kansas constitution.
3 Likes
In what sense? Identical twins are not usual, or even common. Embryonic development, to my knowledge, is not oriented towards our designed for the creation of identical twins.
The zygote is a complete human organism and will develop into a human being given the right environment. A single gamete does not have this property.
Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that the growth and development of an embryo is something intrinsic to it (just as the growth and development of a child’s body is intrinsic to it), not something imposed upon it from the outside (as if the mother’s womb is what causes the embryo to grow). This is among the reasons I say “the zygote is a complete human organism and will develop into a human being given the right environment.”
It does, if you want to deductively infer from twinning to the assertion that human life begins later than conception. (But I don’t even see why I should think my suggestion here is improbable, let alone impossible.)
I checked the original Hebrew (as best as I was able). If there’s a reference to miscarriage or abortion in the text, it is only implicit or euphemistic.
The outcome of the trial is decided by God, and God is the one who carries out the judgment (indicated in the text by the supernatural nature of the judgment - I think dusty water does not usually cause one’s thigh to shrivel and one’s belly to swell). The husband brings it before God, and once he does, it is out of his hands. (And again, this is only relevant on the interpretation that this passage is describing an abortion, rather than a curse of infertility.)
I think your claim about the relevance of this passage also entirely ignores, questions about the role of the OT law (e.g. whether it was and remains a morally perfect standard, or whether it was part of God revealing his moral will progressively, drawing his people to higher standards slowly rather than all at once). So no, still not “pretty simple”.
To me, this sounds like you really don’t understand the beliefs of Christians who oppose abortion - nor do you care to.
So, pro-lifers are inconsistent in applying their principles - naturally responding to the much higher level of attention that surrounds abortion in the public eye, compared to the attention that fertility treatments like IVF recieve - therefore pro-lifers are insincere, and actually lying about their principles?
Please. This is just falsely imputing intentions on those who disagree with you. It’s akin to my saying that proponents of abortion are just using “a women’s right to choose” as a phony excuse to slake their lust for the blood of fetuses.
Anti-abortion advocacy is as much about policing people’s sexual behavior as the abolitionist movement was about controlling people’s economic decisions.
I’m with you right up until “whether to continue a pregnancy” because I just have a hard time not seeing that as terminating the life of a developing human being and that’s a pretty big deal.
I have the right to control my own body, but if I cause a traffic accident that causes another person to die, I don’t think I can just say “I’m very sorry for what happened, but it was an exercise in self-determination to drive the wrong way on the road”. There are limits, right? I am not flippant about the very real issues that women face. I know that there are times when medical professionals have to choose to save one life over another and those are excruciating decisions. I’m just having a hard time seeing abortion “any time, for any reason” as a fundamental right. If that (any time, for any reason) is not the case, then how do we go about figuring the limitations?
Most people do not like the idea of late term abortion, and it’s banned in almost all states. Why is that? It seems like it’s because a baby at that point of development is qualitatively the same as one that’s already born. It’s a “viable” baby. But what happened to the mother’s right to self-determination? I’m just trying to understand what kinds of limitations there could be to this fundamental right (to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination). I’m not saying it’s wrong, but it seems like it has limits.
Twins are normal people.
Your actions say that you don’t believe that.
Sure it does. “The right environment” for the gamete is the same environment as for a zygote, with the simple addition of the complementary gamete.
Are you kidding? Of course the mother’s womb is what causes it to grow! If it doesn’t implant, it doesn’t grow!
The idea that you are applying reality to a principle here is ludicrous. It’s just like IDCreationists lying about or ignoring the scientific data.
Then that’s a lot more than you’ve got with opposing abortion, especially since Exodus 21:22-25 tells us that causing an unwanted abortion to someone else is merely a property crime.
God isn’t doing it on His own initiative. The whole thing only happens if the husband suspects infidelity.
But if the husband doesn’t bring it before God, God doesn’t act. That’s my point.
Still looks much more simple than any Biblical exegesis you have supporting your highly-selective opposition to killing what you claim are human beings.
Why? I think that I understand them quite well. You’re not reasoning from any principle about the beginning of human life.
What are you talking about? Why would any “level of attention” trump the number of alleged human beings being murdered if your position has any basis in any moral principle?
They are indeed lying about using principles. The “principle” here is a post hoc contrivance, as you’ve implicitly admitted and actions demonstrate.
No, Matthew. You won’t find any hypocrisy in my position on abortion; it is a complicated, difficult decision that people like you (and me) shouldn’t be deciding for others. Unlike your position, it is based on actual facts and reasoning from actual moral principles.
If it’s not about sex, why don’t you oppose the alleged murder of so many more alleged human beings in fertility clinics?
At least a (very) few Christians aren’t as hypocritical as you are on this matter:
https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/March-2012/Naperville-Right-to-Life-Activists-Protest-IVF-Clinic/
Well, if we really take Genesis literally, breathing could be used as a marker for human life.
1 Like
That’s possible, but my question to @Patrick is more, would it matter? If it’s all about the fundamental right to self-determination, without limitation, then does the status of the embryo/fetus/baby matter? If it does, then we can discuss how to reason what those limitations and markers might be.
The boundary in the case of abortion is the woman’s body. If you swerve and hit another person in your car then that is a person that exists outside of your body.
I do agree that abortion is a very emotional topic. Even as an atheist who supports a woman’s right to choose, I still wish elective abortions didn’t happen. Each and every elective abortion feels like a failure on the part of society. I wish we could have a country where women weren’t handicapped just because they decided to have a child. This is why I view abortion as a symptom instead of a disease. The disease is the way women’s education and careers are hampered by carrying a child to term. It won’t help to treat just the symptom. We have to treat the underlying disease.
5 Likes
Where did “without limitation” come from?
Seconded. Except for the “atheist” part.
1 Like
I guess that’s rub for many pro-life people I know. They feel it’s a person growing inside a person, not in a detached, “host vessel” type way, but still, not like a wart or a tumor or even a kidney
I very much agree with this (not just education/career, but also as a way to manipulate and control). And I have to admit, Christians by-and-large have not always been great with this. We have to value the child and mother more than the choice to not have an abortion. I get irritated when crisis pregnancy centers, that focus so much on diverting women away from Planned Parenthood, then fail to support the women with medical, adoption, or resource help. Some do better than others.
I can also see real issues with poverty, inequality, and other societal problems that play into this. Christians should step up and help if they are going to push for legislation, in my opinion.
2 Likes
@jordan, I think we have to make a distinction between public policy (what is legally allowed and protected) and what is ultimately right or wrong. I’m not denying right or wrong here, but pragmatically pointing out that there can be a legitimate divergence between legality and morality.
3 Likes
That’s what I’m trying to establish. The way @Patrick is talking about it, that’s the impression I’m getting. I’d like to figure out if that’s true or not. Again, I’m not trying to push for a particular answer or put words in other people’s mouths, but I am trying to understand this better. Some of it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I agree. I was hoping this conversation could help with that. I’m trying to stay away from “is it right or wrong” and more towards “how do we define what it is to be human, and how do we protect each other’s rights when they seem to conflict”. Maybe I’m not doing a good job of that 
1 Like
Agreed. I prefer to encourage the Christian community on this front rather than chide them because this is an issue where both sides could find something to strive towards. I think it would also be helpful if Christian groups threw more support behind contraception, especially birth control pills for women. Abstinence-only policies just won’t cut it.
4 Likes
Right, so this one is a bit touchy. I can’t speak for everywhere, but in my neck of the woods the pro-life movement growing up was very much dominated by Catholics in the sense that they had the funding and organization. Most of the evangelicals I know were OK with contraception (at least condoms and birth control pills), but the Catholics were not. Personally, I think I would absolutely make birth control free if it meant fewer abortions.
1 Like
That’s not consistent with the lack of concern for such “persons” not inside other persons being killed in much higher numbers in fertility clinics.