Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, ending constitutional protection for abortion

Eli Lilly can always move more of their operation to India like the rest of big Pharma.

 

That's probably in the works...

 

A pregnant woman in Louisiana is being forced to carry a fetus that lacks a skull and the top of its head (as a result of a rare condition called acrania) to term. Louisiana’s ban includes an exception for some fetal conditions, but acrania isn’t on the Louisiana Department of Health’s narrow list of qualifying conditions.

Assumably because the headless fetus is presumed to be a future Christian Nationalist MAGA Republican voter.

Louisiana Woman Is Forced Carry Headless Fetus to Term or Travel to Florida for Legal Abortion

 

What a great time to be a woman in America.

Louisiana woman carrying skull-less fetus forced to travel to New York for an abortion

Girl who killed accused rapist must pay his family $150,000

Woman in agony from nonviable pregnancy forced to wait five days for abortion in Texas

Alabama is jailing pregnant marijuana users to ‘protect’ fetuses | Moira Donegan

 

Imagine if roe v wade went differently bak in the day. How hi a population would we have?

 

"Supreme"court: 3 perjurers (roe settled law) Two accused molesters. (Kavanaugh--Thomas . At least two crooked and compromised to super rich who had business before the court--Thomas--Alito. And these trump stooges are deciding the law of the land??? What a joke--an unfunny one. Everything that prick touches turns to shit!!

 

It is interesting to see the extremes both sides gravitate to. That being said, likely if people had not insisted on protecting abortion through the second and third trimester and even post birth in some cases, we likely would never had Roe vs Wade overturned. I am a live and let live freedom for all kind of person, but some of the things that the abortion industry has done is horrendous. They truly are to blame for these setbacks. We all should be able to agree that what is best for society lies somewhere in between the extremes.

 

There are now many horror stories by women affected by republican decisions on anti abortion.

 

I don't know that the "abortion industry" is to blame for the controversy, but I do agree that "what is best for society lies somewhere between the extremes." Figuring out what that is, though, isn't easy. Where human life is concerned, how do we compromise? The issue is popularly framed in terms of "life" versus "choice", but people don't ordinarily have a choice to take a human life, even if it's taking up space in another person's womb. The "pro-life" view championed by the Catholic church and Protestant Evangelicals is that human life begins at conception, and therefore can't be taken even for what might seem like a good reason. The "pro-choice" position, and that of most Jewish foundational texts, is that the fetus doesn't become a full human until birth, and can be aborted if the mother wants to. Most Americans seem, like you and I, to be somewhere in the middle., but find it difficult to come up with a principled to defense of the middle ground. Actually, I think Roe was the best effort so far to do just that.

Roe v. Wade focused on viability--the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb, usually 24 weeks--as the critical factor. By the Court's estimate, the fetus became viable at the third trimester, and the state could prohibit abortion at that point. During the first trimester, abortion was a matter of choice by the pregnant woman. During the second , the State could regulate conditions of the abortion to protect the mother's health, since she was a taxpayer and human resource. During the third trimester, the State can abolish abortion outright, not because the fetus has rights or personhood, but because it, too, has become a potential taxpayer, resource and citizen. The trimester analysis was later abandoned, because modern technology enable a fetus to survive at an earlier stage. But the focus on viability was retained.

My own personal approach to the matter is somewhat different, focusing on when the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness and sensations. This is actually a really old approach, going back to the early days of Christianity, and was generally accepted from the second century BCE to the late nineteenth century.
'Life Begins At Conception' Wasn't Always The Church's Position: A History Of Abortion
The history of Catholic teaching on abortion isn’t as clear cut as you think
Back then, it was phrased in terms of "ensoulment", which is not a concept modern folks on both sides of the issue relate to today. Translated into modern terminology of when a fetus develops a brain and nervous system capable of rudimentary mental functioning, I find it to be the most convincing way to carve out a middle ground on the issue. From a practical standpoint, it leads to a result similar to Roe, but one that may be more defensible for Christians. I find it hard to accept the view that human life or personhood begins when it leaves the womb, while minutes before delivery it is a nothing burger. But at the same time, I find it hard to believe that a blastocyst in a Petri dish is a baby, with full human rights. By looking at the stages of fetal development, we might be able to get a better idea about where to draw the line.

Brain and neural development is a gradual process. I'm no expert, but to the best of my knowledge, the brain begins to form three weeks after fertilization, the first neural cells differentiate into neurons and glia around the fifth week of pregnancy, and by the seventh week it has internal differentiation and connects to a rudimentary spinal cord with neurons and synapses. By the eighth week electrical activity occurs, and the fetus begins to co-ordinate its own movements. By the late second trimester, the cerebellum governing motor movement is directing breathing, swallowing and even some kicking. By the third trimester, the brain triples in weight, all of the brain's convoluted surfaces develop, the right brain-left brain hemispheres make their appearance, and the cerebrum responsible for thinking, remembering and feeling becomes functional. So at what stage in the process is the fetus a "baby" deserving of legal protections? I'll turn that over to you, and quit for the time being. My own preliminary guess is at the third trimester, which would be consistent with Roe.

 

Simple, but maybe a bit arbitrary. Public opinion in the U.S. doesn't support going that far--yet.
Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion?
Most Americans agree: It’s time to put an end to late-term abortions | The Hill
Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views
How a Year Without Roe Shifted American Views on Abortion

At the other extreme are those who say that a fertilized egg is a human and deserves to be treated as such. You provided a photo of one of these on another thread--not the sort of kid one takes strolling in a perambulator. Their position seems to rest on the following syllogism:
--taking a human life is wrong; (see religious scritptures and laws on homicide);
--the fertilized egg is life. (the fertilization view of when life begins was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals) The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed
--the fertilzed egg has human DNA.
Therefore, the fertilized egg is a human being and deserving of legal protection as such.

But only 38% of Americans share that view--I not being among them. Although their intuitions tell them there's something wrong with it (a blastocyst in a Petri dish doesn't look the part; and it has no internal organs and can't feel and think), many find it hard to put forth a principled argument explaining why not. My own effort follows a line that was generally accepted before the late nineteenth century but fell into disfavor by the church and medical science. It's based on the Aristotelian notion that the distinguishing human attribute is its capacity for reason, and Epicurus' idea that a capacity to feel pain and pleasure is critical. We know that both of these attributes are a function of brain and neural development. The ancients expressed this as acquiring a human soul (as opposed to a vegetable or animal soul, which they thought the fetus had), but that's obviously obsolete terminology.

The big problem is that the cutoffs aren't clearcut. Obviously, embryonic development is a gradual, multi-staged process in which the fertilized egg goes from a blob ideally to a Gerber baby. And the timing varies somewhat from one pregnancy to another. Theologians don't want to take the risk, and therefore draw the line at day one. Since I think the potential mother has important interests that can't be disregarded, I'm willing to take the risk, and to say that she should be the main determiner--at least during the first trimester. I think the second, as well.

 

If fertilized eggs are human, then I think we should allow them to vote.