Are Pro-Lifers Trying to Lose?

[Dale]

While huge numbers of people identify as pro-life and spent a great deal of time trying to protect the unborn, I am exasperated by their methods.

I don't defend Roe v. Wade. You can make a very strong case that the Federal government and the Federal courts had no business getting involved in state law on abortion. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the result was completely moot. The woman who brought the case, Norma McCorvey, had filed the case three years before, when she was pregnant. Members of the Supreme Court knew that she was no longer pregnant. They didn't know if she had had the child, had a legal abortion in another state, or an illegal abortion in Texas. The Justices made no attempt to find out. No law forces the courts to fly blind and issue far-reaching decisions without knowing the facts, they simply chose to do so. The Federal Constitution obviously says nothing about abortion or any related issue.

The Roe v. Wade decision was issued the same day as Doe v. Bolton, they are essentially one decision. Roe v. Wade threw out a Texas law on abortion and Doe v. Bolton threw out a Georgia law on abortion. The Justices essentially declared the Texas law to be void because it was old fashioned, outdated, antiquated. It hadn't been revised in almost a hundred years. The Justices essentially declared the Georgia abortion law to be void because it was too complicated and too bureaucratic.

There is a problem here. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are outdated and in need of revision. If antiquated laws are to be revised, that is the responsibility of the legislature. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are complicated and bureaucratic. The Constitution simply doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to do what it did in Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton. If the courts threw out every law that is old fashioned, and also threw out every law that is bureaucratic and burdensome to members of the public, most of our laws could easily be thrown out.

The pro-life movement has no interest in these arguments. Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details. They will not make a legal argument, they will only argue the case as a religious or philosophical argument. Unfortunately, that only weakens their case.

The heartbeat approach that is making such headway in state legislatures is nothing new. Pro-lifers started putting up billboards based on the heartbeat approach at least fifteen years ago, where I live. "Abortion stops a beating heart," is one example. This is one slogan that didn't impress me. Dogs and cats have beating hearts. Horses and cows have beating hearts. Frogs and toads have beating hearts. So what? I couldn't imagine pro-lifers moving forward this way.

As heartbeat bill pass the legislature in state after state, a common opinion is that pro-lifers are hurting their own case by not making exceptions for rape and incest. Even conservative religious leaders are wondering at this approach. Even if you believe that rape and incest shouldn't be excluded, it ought to be obvious that change is going to come gradually.

As I said, I often find pro-lifers to be exasperating, and it's not because I believe in Roe v. Wade or the philosophy that goes with it.

 

[Mel333]

While huge numbers of people identify as pro-life and spent a great deal of time trying to protect the unborn, I am exasperated by their methods.

I don't defend Roe v. Wade. You can make a very strong case that the Federal government and the Federal courts had no business getting involved in state law on abortion. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the result was completely moot. The woman who brought the case, Norma McCorvey, had filed the case three years before, when she was pregnant. Members of the Supreme Court knew that she was no longer pregnant. They didn't know if she had had the child, had a legal abortion in another state, or an illegal abortion in Texas. The Justices made no attempt to find out. No law forces the courts to fly blind and issue far-reaching decisions without knowing the facts, they simply chose to do so. The Federal Constitution obviously says nothing about abortion or any related issue.

The Roe v. Wade decision was issued the same day as Doe v. Bolton, they are essentially one decision. Roe v. Wade threw out a Texas law on abortion and Doe v. Bolton threw out a Georgia law on abortion. The Justices essentially declared the Texas law to be void because it was old fashioned, outdated, antiquated. It hadn't been revised in almost a hundred years. The Justices essentially declared the Georgia abortion law to be void because it was too complicated and too bureaucratic.

There is a problem here. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are outdated and in need of revision. If antiquated laws are to be revised, that is the responsibility of the legislature. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are complicated and bureaucratic. The Constitution simply doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to do what it did in Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton. If the courts threw out every law that is old fashioned, and also threw out every law that is bureaucratic and burdensome to members of the public, most of our laws could easily be thrown out.

The pro-life movement has no interest in these arguments. Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details. They will not make a legal argument, they will only argue the case as a religious or philosophical argument. Unfortunately, that only weakens their case.

The heartbeat approach that is making such headway in state legislatures is nothing new. Pro-lifers started putting up billboards based on the heartbeat approach at least fifteen years ago, where I live. "Abortion stops a beating heart," is one example. This is one slogan that didn't impress me. Dogs and cats have beating hearts. Horses and cows have beating hearts. Frogs and toads have beating hearts. So what? I couldn't imagine pro-lifers moving forward this way.

As heartbeat bill pass the legislature in state after state, a common opinion is that pro-lifers are hurting their own case by not making exceptions for rape and incest. Even conservative religious leaders are wondering at this approach. Even if you believe that rape and incest shouldn't be excluded, it ought to be obvious that change is going to come gradually.

As I said, I often find pro-lifers to be exasperating, and it's not because I believe in Roe v. Wade or the philosophy that goes with it.

Well said.

Yes why do they not make legal arguments?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details

That's not a bug; it's a feature. The attorneys can argue the legal merits of this, that or the other thing in court. That's where complex legal arguments belong.

People are emotional creatures. The general public has always responded better to emotional appeals rather than fact-based logic. The reason pro-lifers appeal to the heart rather than the head is because the former has a clear track record of reaching people.

Most people probably can't follow a well-reasoned legal argument. But they can sure understand the difference between fundamental right and fundamental wrong. You ask if pro-lifers are trying to lose. Me, I'm curious if you're trying to lose.

 

[Not David]

While huge numbers of people identify as pro-life and spent a great deal of time trying to protect the unborn, I am exasperated by their methods.

I don't defend Roe v. Wade. You can make a very strong case that the Federal government and the Federal courts had no business getting involved in state law on abortion. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the result was completely moot. The woman who brought the case, Norma McCorvey, had filed the case three years before, when she was pregnant. Members of the Supreme Court knew that she was no longer pregnant. They didn't know if she had had the child, had a legal abortion in another state, or an illegal abortion in Texas. The Justices made no attempt to find out. No law forces the courts to fly blind and issue far-reaching decisions without knowing the facts, they simply chose to do so. The Federal Constitution obviously says nothing about abortion or any related issue.

The Roe v. Wade decision was issued the same day as Doe v. Bolton, they are essentially one decision. Roe v. Wade threw out a Texas law on abortion and Doe v. Bolton threw out a Georgia law on abortion. The Justices essentially declared the Texas law to be void because it was old fashioned, outdated, antiquated. It hadn't been revised in almost a hundred years. The Justices essentially declared the Georgia abortion law to be void because it was too complicated and too bureaucratic.

There is a problem here. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are outdated and in need of revision. If antiquated laws are to be revised, that is the responsibility of the legislature. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are complicated and bureaucratic. The Constitution simply doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to do what it did in Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton. If the courts threw out every law that is old fashioned, and also threw out every law that is bureaucratic and burdensome to members of the public, most of our laws could easily be thrown out.

The pro-life movement has no interest in these arguments. Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details. They will not make a legal argument, they will only argue the case as a religious or philosophical argument. Unfortunately, that only weakens their case.

The heartbeat approach that is making such headway in state legislatures is nothing new. Pro-lifers started putting up billboards based on the heartbeat approach at least fifteen years ago, where I live. "Abortion stops a beating heart," is one example. This is one slogan that didn't impress me. Dogs and cats have beating hearts. Horses and cows have beating hearts. Frogs and toads have beating hearts. So what? I couldn't imagine pro-lifers moving forward this way.

As heartbeat bill pass the legislature in state after state, a common opinion is that pro-lifers are hurting their own case by not making exceptions for rape and incest. Even conservative religious leaders are wondering at this approach. Even if you believe that rape and incest shouldn't be excluded, it ought to be obvious that change is going to come gradually.

As I said, I often find pro-lifers to be exasperating, and it's not because I believe in Roe v. Wade or the philosophy that goes with it.

I don't see you trying to fight so I will answer sweetly. It is true that a lot of pro-lifers use religious arguments only but the ones who try to take more into action use both biological and philosophical ideas. We wouldn't need to get into philosophy if people would accept that the unborn from the moment of conception but instead we get always excuses that the unborn is "a non-person, parasite, an organ and other nonsense", you even said the unborn has a heartbeat like other forms of life. A lot of people are interested in making pro-life bills so that they can be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Also the unborn is still a human even in case of rape and incest, and abortion won't make the situation disappear but creates more victims.

 

[com7fy8]

Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details. They will not make a legal argument, they will only argue the case as a religious or philosophical argument.

Laws are made hopefully in the best interest of citizens. So, instead of talking about legal ins and outs, how about if we talk about what is best for a mother of an unborn? And from this we can derive how to develop laws.

If a woman says it is her body and her choice, this is not necessarily in her best interest. She could take drugs and argue it's her body. On we could go. How much has the best interest of a woman been dealt with?

By the way, smoking is legal. But is this what really needs to be dealt with? Don't we need laws which handle what is best for a person? A smoker can argue it is his or her body; but . . . for that matter . . . what the smoker does will effect other people, including to violate children with the bad example so they then could go on to smoke and destroy themselves. But law do not effectively stop this, do they?

So, yes you could say one's best interest has nothing to do with it. But what is legal certainly does not necessarily give us what we need to consider.

A consideration > there are girls who are brought up to love babies and tenderly care for them. The nurturing tendency is instilled in them, in their upbringing. Is this what is usually natural for someone? So, whether this is true or not is important. In case men and women do not have such nurturing and tender caring in them, for the unborn and born babies, is this good for them?

Is killing an unborn really what is good for a person . . . in case he or she does not have an effective upbringing to tenderly care for unborn and born babies? My opinion is a young girl does better to be loving an unborn person and then one who is born, instead of growing up to find it needed to kill someone who has not been born . . . maybe in order to keep that unborn from somehow changing the killer's life. Killing is not the answer to not wanting someone to change your life.

There are various laws, already, which do not support killing for the sake of someone having a choice. And, like I offer > just because it is your body, this does not automatically mean you have a right to certain choices for your body. Suicide is illegal, though ones might argue they have the right to choose about their own bodies and lives. On we could go.

Well, I've gotten into a little bit about this.

 

[Not David]

That's not a bug; it's a feature. The attorneys can argue the legal merits of this, that or the other thing in court. That's where complex legal arguments belong.

People are emotional creatures. The general public has always responded better to emotional appeals rather than fact-based logic. The reason pro-lifers appeal to the heart rather than the head is because the former has a clear track record of reaching people.

Most people probably can't follow a well-reasoned legal argument. But they can sure understand the difference between fundamental right and fundamental wrong. You ask if pro-lifers are trying to lose. Me, I'm curious if you're trying to lose.

Yeah, pro-life people argue from a lot of sites: legal, ethical, religious, philosophical. There are people here who say because abortion is not condemned in the Bible then it is ok, or they try to use a Nestorian idea of the soul coming later.

 

[RDKirk]

The strategies against both abortion and homosexuality are doomed to failure because churchfolk are trying to use the enemy's own tools against him.

How did these things become legal? Through the courts and the legislatures.

Those are not Christ's weapons, those are Satan's weapons.

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.-- Luke 4

And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? -- Mark 3

Churchfolk are trying to get Satan to cast out Satan. That's ultimately going to fail, and fail, and maybe look successful for a minute, but then fail again.

Most American abortions are by Christians. How would Jesus deal with that at its root? What is the root? How does a Christian woman wind up in the place of having to make that decision? What could lead her to make the desired decision?

I think the real problem here is that churchfolk don't actually care about the woman at all. The real underlying emotion here is, "You're a sinner woman and you need to suffer the consequences of your sin!" rather than loving her away from it.

 

[Dale]

That's not a bug; it's a feature. The attorneys can argue the legal merits of this, that or the other thing in court. That's where complex legal arguments belong.

People are emotional creatures. The general public has always responded better to emotional appeals rather than fact-based logic. The reason pro-lifers appeal to the heart rather than the head is because the former has a clear track record of reaching people.

Most people probably can't follow a well-reasoned legal argument. But they can sure understand the difference between fundamental right and fundamental wrong. You ask if pro-lifers are trying to lose. Me, I'm curious if you're trying to lose.

Thecolorsblend: "Most people probably can't follow a well-reasoned legal argument."

There is some truth to this.

Thecolorsblend: "The reason pro-lifers appeal to the heart rather than the head is because the former has a clear track record of reaching people."

Yet it is difficult to think of a movement which has made more noise in the last 45 years and accomplished less. The pro-lifers have a lot to do with the fact that huge numbers of people reflexively vote Republican, no questions asked, and want "conservatives" appointed to the Supreme Court. Yet these Republican/conservative judges have done just about everything except revisit R v.W. They have thrown out reasonable gun laws, made it harder to control the influence of money in politics, and based decisions on Libertarian principles which make no sense to me.

Thecolorsblend: "You ask if pro-lifers are trying to lose. Me, I'm curious if you're trying to lose."

I'll tell you a story about who's trying to lose. Some years ago, where I live, the pro-lifers were urging, virtually demanding, that everyone vote Republican. Our congressman was a Republican, with a leadership post in Congress. I looked up his voting record and found that he was voting against the pro-life position seven-eighths of the time. He almost always voted for the pro-choice position. I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out our Republican congressman's pro-choice voting record. One pro-lifer wrote a letter to me thanking me profusely for this information. Outside of that, there isn't much sign my letter had much impact. The congressman exited Congress in an awkward sex scandal before the next election.

At least I provide people with accurate info on how our member of Congress is voting. Apparently our local pro-lifers never looked up his voting record.


Thecolorsblend: "The attorneys can argue the legal merits of this, that or the other thing in court. That's where complex legal arguments belong."

Despite all the lawyer shows on TV, you're telling me that the public can't grasp legal argument?

 

[Dale]

Laws are made hopefully in the best interest of citizens. So, instead of talking about legal ins and outs, how about if we talk about what is best for a mother of an unborn? And from this we can derive how to develop laws.

If a woman says it is her body and her choice, this is not necessarily in her best interest. She could take drugs and argue it's her body. On we could go. How much has the best interest of a woman been dealt with?

By the way, smoking is legal. But is this what really needs to be dealt with? Don't we need laws which handle what is best for a person? A smoker can argue it is his or her body; but . . . for that matter . . . what the smoker does will effect other people, including to violate children with the bad example so they then could go on to smoke and destroy themselves. But law do not effectively stop this, do they?

So, yes you could say one's best interest has nothing to do with it. But what is legal certainly does not necessarily give us what we need to consider.

A consideration > there are girls who are brought up to love babies and tenderly care for them. The nurturing tendency is instilled in them, in their upbringing. Is this what is usually natural for someone? So, whether this is true or not is important. In case men and women do not have such nurturing and tender caring in them, for the unborn and born babies, is this good for them?

Is killing an unborn really what is good for a person . . . in case he or she does not have an effective upbringing to tenderly care for unborn and born babies? My opinion is a young girl does better to be loving an unborn person and then one who is born, instead of growing up to find it needed to kill someone who has not been born . . . maybe in order to keep that unborn from somehow changing the killer's life. Killing is not the answer to not wanting someone to change your life.

There are various laws, already, which do not support killing for the sake of someone having a choice. And, like I offer > just because it is your body, this does not automatically mean you have a right to certain choices for your body. Suicide is illegal, though ones might argue they have the right to choose about their own bodies and lives. On we could go.

Well, I've gotten into a little bit about this.

Com7fy8: "So, instead of talking about legal ins and outs, how about if we talk about what is best for a mother of an unborn? "

What about the father of the unborn? This is an important point completely overlooked in Roe v. Wade.

Com7fy8: "And, like I offer > just because it is your body, this does not automatically mean you have a right to certain choices for your body."

I agree.

 

[Mel333]

Com7fy8: "So, instead of talking about legal ins and outs, how about if we talk about what is best for a mother of an unborn? "

What about the father of the unborn? This is an important point completely overlooked in Roe v. Wade.

Com7fy8: "And, like I offer > just because it is your body, this does not automatically mean you have a right to certain choices for your body."

I agree.

You're current law gives you the right to choose whether or not to bear a child.
Which is the oldest law there is known to man. Free-will.

Again, you should do what is morally right (keep the baby) but you cannot force a woman to have a child.

To make abortion illegal would mean you'd have to criminalise it and there would be young women in jail with the death penalty. You also will need to change the definition of murder which means malice and miscarriages would need to be proven.

and yes, a man should have a right too but then the child is in the woman so legally, it's up to her and if she had security from a male or family would most likely keep it.

 

[redleghunter]

While huge numbers of people identify as pro-life and spent a great deal of time trying to protect the unborn, I am exasperated by their methods.

I don't defend Roe v. Wade. You can make a very strong case that the Federal government and the Federal courts had no business getting involved in state law on abortion. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the result was completely moot. The woman who brought the case, Norma McCorvey, had filed the case three years before, when she was pregnant. Members of the Supreme Court knew that she was no longer pregnant. They didn't know if she had had the child, had a legal abortion in another state, or an illegal abortion in Texas. The Justices made no attempt to find out. No law forces the courts to fly blind and issue far-reaching decisions without knowing the facts, they simply chose to do so. The Federal Constitution obviously says nothing about abortion or any related issue.

The Roe v. Wade decision was issued the same day as Doe v. Bolton, they are essentially one decision. Roe v. Wade threw out a Texas law on abortion and Doe v. Bolton threw out a Georgia law on abortion. The Justices essentially declared the Texas law to be void because it was old fashioned, outdated, antiquated. It hadn't been revised in almost a hundred years. The Justices essentially declared the Georgia abortion law to be void because it was too complicated and too bureaucratic.

There is a problem here. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are outdated and in need of revision. If antiquated laws are to be revised, that is the responsibility of the legislature. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are complicated and bureaucratic. The Constitution simply doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to do what it did in Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton. If the courts threw out every law that is old fashioned, and also threw out every law that is bureaucratic and burdensome to members of the public, most of our laws could easily be thrown out.

The pro-life movement has no interest in these arguments. Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details. They will not make a legal argument, they will only argue the case as a religious or philosophical argument. Unfortunately, that only weakens their case.

The heartbeat approach that is making such headway in state legislatures is nothing new. Pro-lifers started putting up billboards based on the heartbeat approach at least fifteen years ago, where I live. "Abortion stops a beating heart," is one example. This is one slogan that didn't impress me. Dogs and cats have beating hearts. Horses and cows have beating hearts. Frogs and toads have beating hearts. So what? I couldn't imagine pro-lifers moving forward this way.

As heartbeat bill pass the legislature in state after state, a common opinion is that pro-lifers are hurting their own case by not making exceptions for rape and incest. Even conservative religious leaders are wondering at this approach. Even if you believe that rape and incest shouldn't be excluded, it ought to be obvious that change is going to come gradually.

As I said, I often find pro-lifers to be exasperating, and it's not because I believe in Roe v. Wade or the philosophy that goes with it.

States make legal arguments often. Alabama is the first to outlaw most abortions.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't think pro-life have the intellectual capacity to understand law and just have a basic understanding that murder is bad... and just roll with that argument.

The states putting forth the heartbeat laws are reasoning both legally and scientifically. It is biological fact we are human beings at conception.

The 14th Amendment says no person is to be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Alabama by plebiscite passed a state constitutional amendment deeming unborn life at any stage is a person. They then passed another state constitutional amendment outlawing all abortions except in the cases of endangering the woman’s life.

These are all based on settled science and laws protecting the life and liberty of all, not just US citizens.

 

[Mel333]

The states putting forth the heartbeat laws are reasoning both legally and scientifically. It is biological fact we are human beings at conception.

The 14th Amendment says no person is to be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Alabama by plebiscite passed a state constitutional amendment deeming unborn life at any stage is a person. They then passed another state constitutional amendment outlawing all abortions except in the cases of endangering the woman’s life.

These are all based on settled science and laws protecting the life and liberty of all, not just US citizens.

Interesting... Are abortions criminalised in Alabama?

Thanks so much for a legal related response! I like law. I think Amercia's constitutional rights are interesting.

In particular, the freedom of choice one that seems to override making abortions illegal.

So they've made a heartbeat law to override the freedom of choice one in Alabama?

 

[redleghunter]

Interesting... Are abortions criminalised in Alabama?

Thanks so much for a legal related response! I like law. I think Amercia's constitutional rights are interesting.

In particular, the freedom of choice one that seems to override making abortions illegal.

So they've made a heartbeat law to override the freedom of choice one in Alabama?

Alabama has criminalized abortion performed except for the life of the pregnant woman. The focus is on abortion providers.

There’s no Constitutional right to choice in the US Constitution. Especially when another life is at stake.

 

[Mel333]

Alabama has criminalized abortion performed except for the life of the pregnant woman. The focus is on abortion providers.

There’s no Constitutional right to choice in the US Constitution. Especially when another life is at stake.

Freedom of Choice Act - Wikipedia -(maybe not the most creditable source...)

"the 110th United States Congress which "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child"

I thought this is what's in play over there that people are fighting against.

 

[Mel333]

These are all the states that have adopted anti-abortion laws so far in 2019

This is interesting... It looks like Trumps paved the way for the abortion laws.

 

[thecolorsblend]

To make abortion illegal would mean you'd have to criminalise it and there would be young women in jail with the death penalty

Oh well.

 

[paul1149]

The Justices essentially declared the Texas law to be void because it was old fashioned, outdated, antiquated. It hadn't been revised in almost a hundred years. The Justices essentially declared the Georgia abortion law to be void because it was too complicated and too bureaucratic.

Is that really what happened? I'm reading wikipedia on Roe, and Blackmun based the decision on a "right to privacy" founded in the 14th or 9th Amendments, and the rejection of personhood at conception.

BTW, I believe the best way to approach this is "all of the above" - the emotional appeal has its place, as does objective reasoning in the theological and legal realms.

 

[com7fy8]

Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details.

legal details

As you have said, law needs to include the best interest of the man . . . the father.

By the way, not all legal rights are only for an individual citizen.

Don't we have imminent domain law, in which for the greater good it is ruled that a person's property may be purchased and/or used for something which is considered worth taking someone's private property? For example, it is legal to rule that a railroad needs to pass through an area; so the government can require a private property owner to obey arrangements for the railway to be built and to pass through the owner's property. I think this sort of case would mean the owner sells enough property so the railway can function through that area.

I can see how this could work legally. If the woman does not want the child, may be there is some way to declare right of imminent domain, so the woman's body is required to keep the child until birth. She would be paid for the use of her body, since it is her body. Who would be expected to make the claim of imminent domain? Possibly, whoever would be required to pay > the government or the father or some organized pro-life group or religious group, or there could be an option play giving the child a later opportunity to pay his or her mother.

For some reason, now I think of how, if I remember correctly, there is some legal stipulation that a law needs to be practically enforceable.

Also, there seems to be American law, which can require protection of a rare species of animal. And this can result in major changes of "things" where that creature is living. So, maybe like this, the unborn could be declared a special creation needing protection by controlling the baby's environment which is the mother's body. And there would be regulation and enforcement measures, like to how this is done for a rare living species.

But there could be a miscarriage. There might need to be a legal way of investigating the death of an unborn. But this would need to be efficient and enforceable.

Now, this brings us to how many babies we are going to have, if every unborn is not aborted . . . including by morning-after pills. About how many more children a year is a pro-life law going to result in there being? . . . including if morning-after abortion is stopped?

Can a morning-after woman right away give up her child for adoption and be paid imminent domain fees? And who adopts the babies? This might need to be worked out, legally.

As to whether this is legally practical and enforceable > legal details? > were there not at least half a million abortions in one year, in the U.S.? Stopping these would be increasing the American population. And if you add on the morning-after babies not being aborted > this would mean a greater rate of population increase, and more business for medical people . . . maybe more than there is for the abortion industry. So, may be this would be more desirable for medical profiteers.

"Are you serious??" Yeah, I hear this from someone maybe thinking this to me.

But it is . . . legal details. You asked for it

I think a number of pro-life people do not want to do this, partly for financial reasons. But also I think ones, really, know it is in the best interest of a woman that she is able to have a natural nurturing instinct, and likewise the father needs this.

And didn't President Barack Obama . . . a liberal . . . call for "volunteerism"? This was an official statement of a United States president. So, wouldn't this carry some legal weight, to encourage a mother and father to help with taking care of their baby???? And he is a liberal who has called for ones to volunteer to help.

The child has right of imminent domain, and is a protected species . . . the only one in existence. Yet, there are activists who claim to be humanitarian, who are more concerned about the rights of killer whales that drown and tear apart baby humpbacks and eat them for dinner.

So, if there is a culture of enmity against unborn people . . . this effects how enforceable and practical an anti-abortion law can be. Prohibition did not work, it seems; so they decided it was not enforceable and not practical. But this was because of the nature of some number of Americans. This was not the fault of the laws.

There already has been a culture with abortion illegal. And women killed themselves with coat hangers in alleys. I think that might have helped to push people to make abortion legal. It was a time of prohibition . . . of abortion. I wonder how much the coat hanger suicide problem had to do with abortion being made legal. I guess we now can use certain states as a laboratory to test how the abortion ban works. But legally we might not be readily able to check up on what becomes of the unwanted babies.

But I have been told how a mother who does not want her child can unexpectedly bond with him or her, as soon as the child is born. So, I see there will be mothers who are surprised at how they will bond with their babies, then decide not to give them up. So . . . legally, I would say we need to have an option play law in place which gives her say for some period of time after she has her baby, before the child is totally surrendered for adoption.

 

[Kaon]

While huge numbers of people identify as pro-life and spent a great deal of time trying to protect the unborn, I am exasperated by their methods.

I don't defend Roe v. Wade. You can make a very strong case that the Federal government and the Federal courts had no business getting involved in state law on abortion. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the result was completely moot. The woman who brought the case, Norma McCorvey, had filed the case three years before, when she was pregnant. Members of the Supreme Court knew that she was no longer pregnant. They didn't know if she had had the child, had a legal abortion in another state, or an illegal abortion in Texas. The Justices made no attempt to find out. No law forces the courts to fly blind and issue far-reaching decisions without knowing the facts, they simply chose to do so. The Federal Constitution obviously says nothing about abortion or any related issue.

The Roe v. Wade decision was issued the same day as Doe v. Bolton, they are essentially one decision. Roe v. Wade threw out a Texas law on abortion and Doe v. Bolton threw out a Georgia law on abortion. The Justices essentially declared the Texas law to be void because it was old fashioned, outdated, antiquated. It hadn't been revised in almost a hundred years. The Justices essentially declared the Georgia abortion law to be void because it was too complicated and too bureaucratic.

There is a problem here. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are outdated and in need of revision. If antiquated laws are to be revised, that is the responsibility of the legislature. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to throw out laws that are complicated and bureaucratic. The Constitution simply doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to do what it did in Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton. If the courts threw out every law that is old fashioned, and also threw out every law that is bureaucratic and burdensome to members of the public, most of our laws could easily be thrown out.

The pro-life movement has no interest in these arguments. Pro-lifers keep saying that abortion is murder but they have no patience or any interest in legal details. They will not make a legal argument, they will only argue the case as a religious or philosophical argument. Unfortunately, that only weakens their case.

The heartbeat approach that is making such headway in state legislatures is nothing new. Pro-lifers started putting up billboards based on the heartbeat approach at least fifteen years ago, where I live. "Abortion stops a beating heart," is one example. This is one slogan that didn't impress me. Dogs and cats have beating hearts. Horses and cows have beating hearts. Frogs and toads have beating hearts. So what? I couldn't imagine pro-lifers moving forward this way.

As heartbeat bill pass the legislature in state after state, a common opinion is that pro-lifers are hurting their own case by not making exceptions for rape and incest. Even conservative religious leaders are wondering at this approach. Even if you believe that rape and incest shouldn't be excluded, it ought to be obvious that change is going to come gradually.

As I said, I often find pro-lifers to be exasperating, and it's not because I believe in Roe v. Wade or the philosophy that goes with it.

This is a distraction - part of a bunch of things thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

America goes crazy for guns, sexuality, racism, abortion, alcohol, pork and a few other things. It isn't hard to throw a bone out there, and have a bunch of psychologically exhausted people focus on yet another feather of distraction.

That we give in to this exploitation isn't necessarily about abortion coming or going: it is about what we believe we can handle in terms of change. We scoff at the chance to change the world, but individual human dignity, rights and sovereignty is "doable". It just hurts us that this is all to dehumanize us in the long run, and destabilize what little national unity is left.

But, precisely because it is a distraction is the remnant of hope that will suggest this will blow over once another one is introduced. Both sides are unwitting participants in a bigger game.