The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 7
If that "privacy" domain is altered, since it hinges on a lot of other determinations, there are so many other areas which could be affected by any ruling - like marriage, contraception, procreation, abortion, pornography, private consensual homosexual activity, medical treatments etc - unless it was specifically narrowed to refer to abortion alone. Then it would be up to each individual states legislature and Supreme Courts, which I'd imagine would make 50 separate legal hurdles and hundred of lawsuits for pro-life/anti-abortion legal advocates to go through for decades.

Last edited by Michael_Thoma; 10/10/20 08:46 AM.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
[/quote] Here's what one of the two, MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins link [google.com] , said in part:
Quote
.The Court for the most part sustains this position: During the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.


The Justice White/Rehnquist dissent makes a strong case and is convincing to my Catholic conscience. However, I still feel the SCOTUS decision does not promote or encourage abortion, and I'm unconvinced by your argument that it does. I'm not one to delve into the history of the destruction of unborn human life, but my instinct tells me that the practice is as old as the human race. I do not see a reversal of Roe v Wade as changing the prevailing consensus in many states that abortion services should be made available, and woman who are determined to seek out these services will cross state lines to do so as they did in the past, or find other less appealing ways of finding what they want. As I've said before: Pick your poison.



Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by Utroque
[/quote] Here's what one of the two, MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins link [google.com] , said in part:
Quote
.The Court for the most part sustains this position: During the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.


The Justice White/Rehnquist dissent makes a strong case and is convincing to my Catholic conscience. However, I still feel the SCOTUS decision does not promote or encourage abortion, and I'm unconvinced by your argument that it does. I'm not one to delve into the history of the destruction of unborn human life, but my instinct tells me that the practice is as old as the human race. I do not see a reversal of Roe v Wade as changing the prevailing consensus in many states that abortion services should be made available, and woman who are determined to seek out these services will cross state lines to do so as they did in the past, or find other less appealing ways of finding what they want. As I've said before: Pick your poison.
Your post gets to the heart of our disagreement:
Originally Posted by Utroque
However, I still feel the SCOTUS decision does not promote or encourage abortion, ...

Originally Posted by Utroque
... but my instinct tells me that the practice is as old as the human race.
Yes, and worse practices also.

Originally Posted by Utroque
...I do not see a reversal of Roe v Wade as changing the prevailing consensus in many states that abortion services should be made available,
Perhaps, but curbs on abortion at the state level, for instance, have been and continue to be made, and struck down based on " the SCOTUS decision."

Originally Posted by Utroque
...and woman who are determined to seek out these services will cross state lines to do so as they did in the past, or find other less appealing ways of finding what they want.
True but the lack of this interference or inconvenience is a result of "the SCOTUS decision," a result that "values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus" . That this is now the case, removing obstacles, suggests that the SCOTUS decision does promote or encourage abortion.

We only have the results of the one experiment, Roe v Wade; we can only infer a no- Roe v Wade-decision result. As Justice White observed:
Quote
The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 179, 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.

So our difference is really whether it its correct that "the SCOTUS decision does not promote or encourage abortion." For me this can only be said in a trivial sense,for instance, the opening of a locked door to a closed room "does not promote or encourage" someone inside from leaving. For my understanding "the SCOTUS decision [DOES; ajk] promote or encourage abortion" since by it "the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus" as Justice White wrote.

[All emphasis is added throughout this post]


Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 23
Roe v Wade does not grant an ABSOLUTE right to have an abortion, but leaves states the right to restrict only after quickening, unless the mother's life be in danger. Unless there be a massive, unforeseen, awakening of Orthodox/Catholic, Orthodox Jew and Evangelical consciousness in the, so called, "blue" states, I do not have any hope that there will be a change in the legislative consensus there. Even if Roe v Wade were struck down, absent a Constitutional Amendment, states may be morally disentitled , but I do not think they would be so, Constitutionally. It seems to me that in the White/Rehnquist dissent there is an implied Constitutional protection of the embryo/fetus before quickening. I'm no legal expert, but I do not see this, and medical consensus does not serve the law in this case, IMHO.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by Utroque
Roe v Wade does not grant an ABSOLUTE right to have an abortion, but leaves states the right to restrict only after quickening, unless the mother's life be in danger.
This is as oblique an interpretation as the previously disputed view that "the SCOTUS decision does not promote or encourage abortion." It's not just that "the mother's life be in danger" but (see below) "the health of the woman (as opposed to the life of the woman)."

Consider this from Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. [law.cornell.edu].

Quote
100
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What are other interests for abortion other than life-saving (for the mother)?

Quote
77
...a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

Roe v Wade is a poorly written decision that allows actual interpretations resulting in abortion up to the designated time of birth and, given 77 above for example, on demand. Consider Partial-Birth Abortion, a hideous consequence of Roe v Wade, and the course of its ban and challenges. Here are two commentaries:

1. Partial-Birth Abortion [usccb.org]

2. 'Partial-Birth Abortion': Separating Fact From Spin [npr.org]

Also, as a summary Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act [en.wikipedia.org]:

Quote
The constitutionality of the law was challenged immediately after the signing. Three different U.S. district courts declared the law unconstitutional.[17][18][19] All three cited the law's omission of an exception for the health of the woman (as opposed to the life of the woman), and all three decisions cited precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). The federal government appealed the district court rulings, which were then affirmed by three courts of appeals.[20][21][22] The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006,[23] and agreed to hear the companion Planned Parenthood case on June 19, 2006.[24]

On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, held that the statute does not violate the Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority which included Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent which was joined by Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.[25] Kennedy's majority opinion argued that the case differed from Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortion as unconstitutional, in that the Partial Birth Abortion Act defined the banned procedure more clearly. In dissent, Ginsburg argued that the decision departed from established abortion jurisprudence, and that lack of a health exception "jeopardizes women’s health and places doctors in an untenable position". The replacement of O'Connor by Alito was identified as a key difference between the 5–4 decision against the Nebraska law in Stenberg and the 5-4 support for the abortion ban in Gonzales.[26]
[emphasis added]

But there's a work-around for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban:
Quote
Clinical response

In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fetal demise before beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle.[29][30] This is often done by providers who do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures (as well as by those who do) because they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them "to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused".[31]
[emphasis added]








Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
J
jvf Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 2
disagree.
Executing someone who was found guilty in a court of law for murdering another human being and then according
to the laws execute him IS NOT THE SAME as murdering an innocent infant inside its mothers womb.
This infant did not have a "FAIR TRIAL" just executed because his mother wanted him out of the way.

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5