Abortion Thread with a Twist

[Darius871]

I believe that was Floyd's point. It doesn't... unless you want to extend substantive due process rights that far (right against being killed while doing nothing? ).

That's not the way I read it; from context the exchange sounded like:

Slowwhand: sterilize idiots
DF: forced sterilization would be unconstitutional (just like banning abortion)
Slowwhand: the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the government can't mandate sterilization, so why would it be unconstitutional?
DF: the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that I can't shoot you either, and yet I can't shoot you (implying that it, like sterilization, is unconstitutional???)

I could be wrong, but even if I am, then for different reasons DF's post makes no sense as a retort Slowwhand's point.

[Berzerker]

forced sterilization would be unconstitutional, it aint one of the powers granted to Congress

I imagine the various state constitutions dont include such a power either

[Darius871]

forced sterilization would be unconstitutional, it aint one of the powers granted to Congress

Who said anything about Congress doing it? Individual states have an inherent police power that need not be enumerated, so the only question is whether the Constitution prohibits this particular exercise of that power. Personally I've never thought that the Due Process Clause has any substantive (as opposed to procedural) implications whatsoever, but the Supremes have thought otherwise for decades and would probably prohibit forced sterilization from whole cloth, sure.

Edit: saw your DanS, but even then the state constitution does not exclusively enumerate powers like the U.S. Constitution does, and thus can only limit the inherent police power. The right to reproduction's unlikely to be mentioned, but again a broad reading of due process might.

[SlowwHand]

That's not the way I read it; from context the exchange sounded like:

Slowwhand: sterilize idiots
DF: forced sterilization would be unconstitutional (just like banning abortion)
Slowwhand: the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the government can't mandate sterilization, so why would it be unconstitutional?
DF: the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that I can't shoot you either, and yet I can't shoot you (implying that it, like sterilization, is unconstitutional???)

I could be wrong, but even if I am, then for different reasons DF's post makes no sense as a retort Slowwhand's point.

Well, Hell no it doesn't. Even David knows it doesn't. I'm onto his game.

[Darius871]

Personally I've never thought that the Due Process Clause has any substantive (as opposed to procedural) implications whatsoever, but the Supremes have thought otherwise for decades and would probably prohibit forced sterilization from whole cloth, sure.

Scratch that - it looks like they only rejected punitive sterilization (see Skinner v. Oklahoma) and said eugenic sterilization is A-OK (see Buck v. Bell), and their absence from today's scene is mainly political unpopularity after the Nazis. You learn something new every day. Whether the liburrhul fruitcakes on the bench these days would change that is an open question.

[HalfLotus]

Obama's boy Holdren is all about some population control.

[Bosh]

Realistically overturning Roe would just mean that people in red states would have to drive/fly a bit to get to a blue state to get an abortion. A nationwide abortion ban would hardly follow from Roe v. Wade being overturned and would be completely unenforcable.

[Darius871]

like I said

[Elok]

Catholics are fundamentalists? Who knew?

BTW Elok your Orthodox mates don't accept Contraception either.

There is no formally established position, as we haven't had an ecumenical council on it. However, every opinion I've read by authorities in this country comes to the same conclusion (and independently, at that): contraceptives are acceptable within the Orthodox tradition for use by married couples to regulate childbirth.

They may well have different opinions in Russia. And yes, they don't say anything about unmarried couples using them, but as we don't approve of fornication in general that shouldn't surprise anybody. My own Orthodox perspective on it would be, if you're going to fornicate, don't compound the sin by bringing a child into the world you're not prepared to care for.

[Darius871]

contraceptives are acceptable within the Orthodox tradition for use by married couples to regulate childbirth.

What difference would that make wrt abortion? I'm fairly sure that a vast majority of abortions are the product of not "married couples" but fornication, which all major denominations technically prohibit in any event...

[MikeH]

Lots of false assumptions in there. Just addressing your false assumptions would take more effort than I care to spend, and that wouldn't even address your main points (if you have any non-troll points).

So I'll just add one thought: we can't assume that every abortion today will be a born child post-abortion. Lacking an abortion fail-safe will encourage a lot more couples to use contraception.

Or more likely, it'll create a demand for illegal abortions, with their inherent risks. So you'll end up with dead mothers as well as aborted babies.

Abortion and adoption are both still very harrowing, the vast majority of people having abortions weren't having unprotected sex on the basis they can always have an abortion. I'm sure people could find one or two idiots who say that but really, no-one really thinks that's commonplace do they?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What difference would that make wrt abortion? I'm fairly sure that a vast majority of abortions are the product of not "married couples" but fornication, which all major denominations technically prohibit in any event...

I believe he referring to Ben's contention that Orthodox faith bans contraceptives, not as to the wider issue.

[Kidlicious]

That's true, and the corollary of that argument is "Who wants to adopt a HIV positive baby addicted to heroin?"

I don't think there are many drug addicts that spend their money on abortions.

[Elok]

I believe he referring to Ben's contention that Orthodox faith bans contraceptives, not as to the wider issue.

Correct. We utterly oppose abortion for all circumstances save the life of the mother at risk--we have since ancient times, though the life of the mother bit was pretty well unknowable back then--and I generally agree, though I think there should be provisions allowing for fatally deformed fetuses. We do not consider abortion a form of contraception.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no formally established position, as we haven't had an ecumenical council on it. However, every opinion I've read by authorities in this country comes to the same conclusion (and independently, at that): contraceptives are acceptable within the Orthodox tradition for use by married couples to regulate childbirth.

And has been the case since the 60s. Wow. Glad I ain't orthodox. That's not something I was aware of that you folks have capitulated to the world.