Roe V Wade history?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

They have the moral argument.

Nay. They claim to have the power to control the body of a free adult, because they have appointed themselves guardians of zygotes. The moral argument is that free adults control their own bodies.

[Chicks]

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Every single one of these conservative justices swore, under oath, that this was "settled law", that they would not mess with.

No they didn't.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10961...ation-hearings

[Chicks]

Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook
To colonial Americans, termination was as normal as the ABCs and 123s.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...on-recipe.html

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

No they didn't.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10961...ation-hearings

Thanks!

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook
To colonial Americans, termination was as normal as the ABCs and 123s.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...on-recipe.html

Inductive reasoning becomes false analogy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...ence-abortion/

James Wilson, who wrote the Constitution’s preamble, weighed in on the subject of abortion law in a 1790 lecture. Quoting William Blackstone, a preeminent authority on English common law, Wilson told his audience: “In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.” Abortion, in Wilson’s view, could not be regulated by law before that time.

While Wilson and I may or may not agree on his statement, I'm sure he would profoundly disagree with the abortion on demand, abortion as birth control, abortion well into the 9th month of pregnancy, and the Governor Northam-esque post birth termination advocates in today's pro-abortionist lobby.

I also disagree with the WaPo author's statement above that "Abortion, in Wilson’s view, could not be regulated by law before that time." There's no evidence for that, and the author cannot drawn that conclusion from Wilson's one-sentence statement.

At best, Wilson was likely referring to the limits on power of the Federal Gov't. Its unlikely he would have categorically attached the same legal framework to state law, for the Constitution he helped author went on to include the 10th Amendment, which would have given the States, not the Feds, jurisdiction in such matters.

[BigElCat]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook
To colonial Americans, termination was as normal as the ABCs and 123s.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...on-recipe.html

I've heard or read that rural American doctors would routinely euthanize seriously deformed babies at birth; conditions that had no medical remedy at the time.

It's sad, but was almost necessary. Now, they're kept alive, and are called "Crib Kids" in nursing homes. Not something the Repubs are going to want to continue to pay for.

It's a mess for sure.

Also, there is an archaic law in the State of Kansas that permits parents to petition the courts, and have a child under the age of 18 adjudicated as "unruly". Unruliness has a death penalty. I don't know of any accounts in which anyone was put to death, but the law was ratified. No one can use it now, the parents are legally liable for their children's behaviors.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Nay. They claim to have the power to control the body of a free adult, because they have appointed themselves guardians of zygotes. The moral argument is that free adults control their own bodies.

The argument is a weighing of life against personal cares, even indulgence.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

The argument is a weighing of life against personal cares, even indulgence.

Indulging one's personal cares is known as freedom, by those not trying to take it away. Ascribing uncompromisable sacred status to zygotes is likewise a personal care and indulgence, of a religious nature. Some people do this ascribing, some don't. It boils down to whose attitude toward a zygote should prevail, that of the person carrying it, or that of others, who thereby gain profound control over the person.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Indulging one's personal cares is known as freedom, by those not trying to take it away. Ascribing uncompromisable sacred status to zygotes is likewise a personal care and indulgence, of a religious nature. Some people do this ascribing, some don't. It boils down to whose attitude toward a zygote should prevail, that of the person carrying it, or that of others, who thereby gain profound control over the person.

Yeah that is the crux...there is sufficient who consider the abridgement of such freedom vital to societal conscience.

Kudos to them for not yielding.