House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

[Allanea]

Because obviously a bill against taxpayer funding of abortion has nothing to do with cutting spending whatever. No sirree Bob.

How much do you think an abortion costs?

I expect an abortion to cost several hundred to several thousand dollars, perhaps more, because of the physician time, equipment, etc. needed.

Regardless, there's absolutely no reason for them to be funded by taxpayers except in the cases of threat to the mother or something like this. Abortions are elective surgery. Why shouyld the government fund elective surgery at the Federal level?

[Euronion]

We support all choices. Fetuses are too stupid to have a choice so they don't deserve a choice.

So should we kill retards?

may I remind anyone who is for abortion and whos slogan is "Its just a fetus" you are probably one of the stupidest people, I can understand someone making a logical arguement about abortion, but as humans we do not look at something and just see it for what it is we see what it will become, do you look at kids and school, and just think that these kids in school will stay in school, or do you think that one will become a police officer, another will become doctor, that fetus that you destroyred is a human being in progress, every human was once a fetus, so what if your mother decided she was not ready for a baby and decided to have an abortion for you, then you would be dead, If I killed you I would be convicted of murder, so just because I killed you say 30 years earlier does it make me any less guilty of the crime? no, fine put aside all your morals and look at it logically, how is abortion legal, when if you kill a pregnant woman it is, in a court of law, a double homicide? a fetus is a human in progress, what if MArtin Luther King Jr.'s mother had decided to get an abortion, what if George Washington's mother decided to get an abortion (they have had abortion since the middle ages except the woman would have a man punch her stomach to cause a miscarriage) Thomas Jefferson's mother, John Adams' mother, jesus' mother, Rosa Parks' mother, the list goes on and on just because it is unborn doesn't mean it is not sentient

[Nulono]

Tell me again why there are women who are part of the republican party?

Because there are women who agree with Republicans?

So should we kill retards?

may I remind anyone who is for abortion and whos slogan is "Its just a fetus" you are probably one of the stupidest people, I can understand someone making a logical arguement about abortion, but as humans we do not look at something and just see it for what it is we see what it will become, do you look at kids and school, and just think that these kids in school will stay in school, or do you think that one will become a police officer, another will become doctor, that fetus that you destroyred is a human being in progress, every human was once a fetus, so what if your mother decided she was not ready for a baby and decided to have an abortion for you, then you would be dead, If I killed you I would be convicted of murder, so just because I killed you say 30 years earlier does it make me any less guilty of the crime? no, fine put aside all your morals and look at it logically, how is abortion legal, when if you kill a pregnant woman it is, in a court of law, a double homicide? a fetus is a human in progress, what if MArtin Luther King Jr.'s mother had decided to get an abortion, what if George Washington's mother decided to get an abortion (they have had abortion since the middle ages except the woman would have a man punch her stomach to cause a miscarriage) Thomas Jefferson's mother, John Adams' mother, jesus' mother, Rosa Parks' mother, the list goes on and on just because it is unborn doesn't mean it is not sentient

The fetus is valuable for what he is, a human. His future is irrelevant to his value.

[The Norwegian Blue]

I'm in no way blaming the fetus for anything. This has nothing whatsoever to do with blame, or with what anyone "deserves." It has to do solely with the simple fact that no born person has the right to use my body against my will, and so even were fetuses to be given all the rights of born humans, they would still have no right to remain in a woman's uterus against her will. Please try rereading the post, since I did not say "fetuses are rapists," but rather that self-defense during rape is one obvious example of the fact that your right to bodily autonomy does indeed extend to the right to kill when necessary.

Deadly force is not justified against a rapist, and is not analogous to abortion.

...seriously? Deadly force is not justified against a rapist, when it is the only way to stop the rape? Wow. That's...a pretty damn repulsive position. You would seriously insist that someone being raped be careful to make sure their struggles could not possibly inflict fatal harm upon their rapist - so, you know, no shooting them, no stabbing them, no blows to the head? Perhaps we should just mandate under the law that women being raped should lie there politely, lest they accidentally hurt their poor rapist. Sick, sick, sick.

Also, I think you missed this post:

If the abortion kills the fetus, I'm against it.

Ah, then you've been dishonest, either here or before. I said "It would still, however, have absolutely no right to stay attached to anyone's body against that person's will, regardless of whether it needs that body to survive," and you replied that you were not arguing against me there, but "only arguing against killing the fetus." Either you are arguing against my point that one does not have the right to stay attached to anyone's body against that person's will (in which case, I'm afraid, you'll need an actual argument against that), or you're not. Based on your above "women must be careful not to hurt their rapists" position, I know which one I'd guess.

[Norstal]

How much do you think an abortion costs?

I expect an abortion to cost several hundred to several thousand dollars, perhaps more, because of the physician time, equipment, etc. needed.

Regardless, there's absolutely no reason for them to be funded by taxpayers except in the cases of threat to the mother or something like this. Abortions are elective surgery. Why shouyld the government fund elective surgery at the Federal level?

Or it can be a life saving surgery. Abortions can save lives. Who knew?!

[Allanea]

I've covered that. Amazing.

[Nulono]

Deadly force is not justified against a rapist, and is not analogous to abortion.

...seriously? Deadly force is not justified against a rapist, when it is the only way to stop the rape? Wow. That's...a pretty damn repulsive position. You would seriously insist that someone being raped be careful to make sure their struggles could not possibly inflict fatal harm upon their rapist - so, you know, no shooting them, no stabbing them, no blows to the head? Perhaps we should just mandate under the law that women being raped should lie there politely, lest they accidentally hurt their poor rapist. Sick, sick, sick.

If the abortion kills the fetus, I'm against it.

Ah, then you've been dishonest, either here or before. I said "It would still, however, have absolutely no right to stay attached to anyone's body against that person's will, regardless of whether it needs that body to survive," and you replied that you were not arguing against me there, but "only arguing against killing the fetus." Either you are arguing against my point that one does not have the right to stay attached to anyone's body against that person's will (in which case, I'm afraid, you'll need an actual argument against that), or you're not. Based on your above "women must be careful not to hurt their rapists" position, I know which one I'd guess.

Deadly force is only justified to save your life. If you started beating me up I wouldn't have a right to kill you either.

I wasn't dishonest. I'm against killing the fetus. I'm said this consistently.

I expect an abortion to cost several hundred to several thousand dollars, perhaps more, because of the physician time, equipment, etc. needed.

Regardless, there's absolutely no reason for them to be funded by taxpayers except in the cases of threat to the mother or something like this. Abortions are elective surgery. Why shouyld the government fund elective surgery at the Federal level?

Or it can be a life saving surgery. Abortions can save lives. Who knew?!

And Allanea EXPLICITLY SAID that life-saving abortions should be funded.

[Kalibarr]

Tell me again why there are women who are part of the republican party?

Because there are women who agree with Republicans?

To agree to take away your own rights seems illogical to me

[Conserative Morality]

Deadly force is only justified to save your life. If you started beating me up I wouldn't have a right to kill you either.

Words cannot express how I feel about this statement, especially in context.

[Allanea]

Deadly force is only justified to save your life. If you started beating me up I wouldn't have a right to kill you either.

Untrue. In most jurisdiction it's also justified to protect yourself from rape, attacks against your health - for example being beaten up by multiple bulky men who can break a limb or worse - and in some cases, even to protect property.

[Norstal]

I've covered that. Amazing.

Dangit, my eyes aren't working well today. I apologize.

[Nulono]

Because there are women who agree with Republicans?

To agree to take away your own rights seems illogical to me

Not all women think abortion is a right. American women are actually more likely to consider abortion immoral than men.

[Euronion]

many people are looking at the fetus like it is unavoidable, for the people who have had consensual sex,(not raped or anything like that) and concieved they are getting rid of a life to save their own convenience, the simply matter is in nature sex was made for reproduction, that is its purpose, and pleasure is a side effect of sex, people now and for many hundreds of years have been viewing it switched, sex is for pleasure, and babies are a side effect, the fact is there is a 100% way to be sure not to have a child you cannot support, DO NOT HAVE SEX!, if you are ready ofr a baby or can support it and give it educaton food, and so on, sure have 300 kids for all I care, but for a 13 year old coming from a poor family who has sex with a boy from another poor family and they concieve a child, that is their fault, it was their choice, you do the deed and you suffer the consecuences, its a life lesson, and we are cheating them out of that life lesson that if you do something there are going to be consequences (except in cases of Rape)

[Conserative Morality]

many people are looking at the fetus like it is unavoidable, for the people who have had consensual sex,(not raped or anything like that) and concieved they are getting rid of a life to save their own convenience, the simply matter is in nature sex was made for reproduction, that is its purpose, and pleasure is a side effect of sex, people now and for many hundreds of years have been viewing it switched, sex is for pleasure, and babies are a side effect, the fact is there is a 100% way to be sure not to have a child you cannot support, DO NOT HAVE SEX!, if you are ready ofr a baby or can support it and give it educaton food, and so on, sure have 300 kids for all I care, but for a 13 year old coming from a poor family who has sex with a boy from another poor family and they concieve a child, that is their fault, it was their choice, you do the deed and you suffer the consecuences, its a life lesson, and we are cheating them out of that life lesson that if you do something there are going to be consequences (except in cases of Rape)

I don't think it'll be so much 'teaching them a lesson' as 'Ruining or endangering their life'

[Norstal]

So should we kill retards?

may I remind anyone who is for abortion and whos slogan is "Its just a fetus" you are probably one of the stupidest people, I can understand someone making a logical arguement about abortion, but as humans we do not look at something and just see it for what it is we see what it will become, do you look at kids and school, and just think that these kids in school will stay in school, or do you think that one will become a police officer, another will become doctor, that fetus that you destroyred is a human being in progress, every human was once a fetus, so what if your mother decided she was not ready for a baby and decided to have an abortion for you, then you would be dead, If I killed you I would be convicted of murder, so just because I killed you say 30 years earlier does it make me any less guilty of the crime? no, fine put aside all your morals and look at it logically, how is abortion legal, when if you kill a pregnant woman it is, in a court of law, a double homicide? a fetus is a human in progress, what if MArtin Luther King Jr.'s mother had decided to get an abortion, what if George Washington's mother decided to get an abortion (they have had abortion since the middle ages except the woman would have a man punch her stomach to cause a miscarriage) Thomas Jefferson's mother, John Adams' mother, jesus' mother, Rosa Parks' mother, the list goes on and on just because it is unborn doesn't mean it is not sentient

Your arguments sucks. Calling other people stupid is an ad hominem as well. Congrats, Nulono is better than you in an abortion argument. You're the new Nulono.

[Nulono]

many people are looking at the fetus like it is unavoidable, for the people who have had consensual sex,(not raped or anything like that) and concieved they are getting rid of a life to save their own convenience, the simply matter is in nature sex was made for reproduction, that is its purpose, and pleasure is a side effect of sex, people now and for many hundreds of years have been viewing it switched, sex is for pleasure, and babies are a side effect, the fact is there is a 100% way to be sure not to have a child you cannot support, DO NOT HAVE SEX!, if you are ready ofr a baby or can support it and give it educaton food, and so on, sure have 300 kids for all I care, but for a 13 year old coming from a poor family who has sex with a boy from another poor family and they concieve a child, that is their fault, it was their choice, you do the deed and you suffer the consecuences, its a life lesson, and we are cheating them out of that life lesson that if you do something there are going to be consequences (except in cases of Rape)

I am so SICK of this argument. Abortion isn't bad because it lets you avoid taking responsibility. It's bad because it kills a human.

[Euronion]

The fetus is valuable for what he is, a human. His future is irrelevant to his value.

irrelevant? how can youj sanction killing a human without considering its potential or whqat it will become, it is a human, and if it is born it will do something, it might become a doctor that just happens to save your life one day, the thing is it is a human life it will grow up, and you cannot say that killing a human without any regard for what it will do or become is correct or that a fetus has no value, let me tell you something you are a cold hearted person you are not talking about some computer or other thing you are talking about life, can you say that a seed growing into a tree is irrelevant to the seeds value? you are slaughtering a human, it is immoral, it is unjust, it is sickening, and I do not see how you can justify it

[Nulono]

The fetus is valuable for what he is, a human. His future is irrelevant to his value.

irrelevant? how can youj sanction killing a human without considering its potential or whqat it will become, it is a human, and if it is born it will do something, it might become a doctor that just happens to save your life one day, the thing is it is a human life it will grow up, and you cannot say that killing a human without any regard for what it will do or become is correct or that a fetus has no value, let me tell you something you are a cold hearted person you are not talking about some computer or other thing you are talking about life, can you say that a seed growing into a tree is irrelevant to the seeds value? 3

The fetus DOES have value, whether he's Einstein or Stalin or Joe Schmoe, and deserves not to be killed.

[Zepuan]

If someone tried making killing people legal, wouldn't you try to end that?

Your analogy fails, a fetus is not a person, and abortion is not a murder.

Care to try again? [Y/N]

this is your opinion right or wrong other people view abortion as murder
if some one is of this belief system you should not have to ask why they oppose abortion

[Alien Space Bats]

The Roe v Wade decision was primarily guided by political expediency. At the time of the case, media stories swirled about the country, highlighting several pregnant teenagers who stupidly attempted a coat-hanger abortion (with predictable results). The justices did not want to be blamed for causing coat-hanger deaths and thus took the easy way out when making their ruling. Just goes to show that even though they're appointed for life and supposed to be above the influence of political winds, it's not perfect.

I'm sorry, but that's patent bullshit.

Roe v. Wade (1973) was solidly grounded in Constitutional law, as evidenced by the extreme positions that many of its detractors end up taking in order to declare it "judicial activism" (eg., Robert Bork's position that most of the precedents leading up to Roe [including Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)] were "wrongly decided"). It stands at the end of a pair of intertwined threads of legal argument that establish the idea of Americans as having a pair of basic rights known as "bodily integrity" and "substantive due process".

Bodily integrity is currently the weaker of these two threads, and it was one Robert Bork railed against. Bork was never shy of following his ideas through to their logical conclusions, however horrific they might have been, and his musings on the effect that a ruling overturning Roe might have on destroying the doctrine of bodily integrity is particularly telling: He noted that the whole issue of involuntary sterilization is currently in legal limbo due to the contradiction between the Supreme Court's position in Buck v. Bell (1927) - allowing individuals who are deemed "mentally defective" to be sterilized against their will - and its position in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) - generally disallowing the involuntary sterilization of criminals unless such sterilizations are carried out across the board (the Oklahoma law in question did not mandate sterilization for white-collar crime), and then went on to assert that taking down Roe and Griswold would make it much easier for States to return to their old (Depression-era) policy of sterilizing criminals and other undesirables under force of law.

Substantive due process is by far the stronger thread. If Republicans were truly the (old-fashioned) libertarians they claim to be (and not the faux libertarians they actually are), they would embrace the notion of substantive due process as a proper limitation of state power:

Substantive due process (SDP) is the theory of law through which courts enforce limits on governmental powers and authority. Under American jurisprudence, the avenue for use of this theory by courts comes from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, each of which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That is, substantive due process demarcates the line between, on the one hand, acts by persons of a public or private nature that courts hold are subject to public regulations or legislation, and on the other hand, acts that courts place beyond the reach of any governmental regulation.

SDP is to be distinguished from procedural due process (PDP). The distinction between SDP and PDP arises from the phrase "due process of law" (emphasis supplied). PDP aims to protect individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes under valid laws are fair and impartial (e.g., the right to sufficient notice, the right to an impartial arbiter, the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearings, etc.). Conversely, SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments which exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts find the majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the process of enforcement actually is.

The term "substantive due process" was first used explicitly in 1930s legal casebooks as a categorical distinction of selected due process cases, and by 1950 had been mentioned twice in Supreme Court opinions. The term "substantive due process" itself is commonly used in two ways: first, to identify a particular line of case law; and second, to signify a particular political attitude toward judicial review under the two Due Process Clauses.

Much SDP litigation involves legal challenges regarding unenumerated rights which seek particular outcomes instead of merely contesting procedures and their effects; in successful cases, the Supreme Court recognizes a constitutionally-based "liberty" which then renders laws seeking to limit said "liberty" either unenforceable or limited in scope. Critics of SDP decisions usually assert that those liberties ought to be left to the more politically accountable branches of government. (emphasis mine - ASB)

- Wikipedia Article on "Substantive Due Process"

The idea here is that there are certain kinds of laws that legislatures, however empowered by majority support, simply should not be allowed to enact. Mostly, SDP stands upon the idea that governmental power is limited in scope: Majorities can't just "do anything" by virtue of being majorities; they have to find a "compelling state interest" to justify intervention in the strictest of cases, and usually need a "rational basis" for even minimally intrusive laws.

When a law or other act of government is challenged as a violation of individual liberty under the Due Process Clause, courts nowadays primarily use two forms of scrutiny, or judicial review. This inquiry balances the importance of the governmental interest being served and the appropriateness of the government's method of implementation against the resulting infringement of individual rights. If the governmental action infringes upon a fundamental right, the highest level of review—strict scrutiny—is used. In order to pass strict scrutiny review, the law or act must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.

When the governmental restriction restricts liberty in a manner that does not implicate a fundamental right, rational basis review is used. Here a legitimate government interest is enough to pass this review. This means that the government's goal must simply be something that it is acceptable for the government to pursue. The means used by the legislation only have to be reasonable for getting to the government's goals; they need not be the best. Under a rational basis test, the burden of proof is on the challenger. Thus it is rare that laws are overturned after a rational basis test, although this is not unheard of. (emphasis mine - ASB)

- Wikipedia Article on "Substantive Due Process"

Now, I would think that real libertarians would applaud the idea that legislatures need to have their ducks in a row enough to at least be able to justify their actions on the basis of "a legitimate government interest... something that it is acceptable for the government to pursue"; and when it comes to trampling all over people's lives and curtailing their freedom, I would think that such people would be overjoyed to imagine that laws must properly "(balance) the importance of the governmental interest being served and the appropriateness of the government's method of implementation against the resulting infringement of individual rights". As those of us who were there at the start of the modern American libertarian movement (back in the early 70's, before idiots like Rothbard and his ilk took it over) might say, "Hell, yes!"

The problem with SDP when it comes to Roe (if you're one of those people who sees abortion as a fundamental wrong that ought to be banned) is that abortion bans can't pass a strict scrutiny test without relying on religious principles.

That a woman's fundamental rights - her right to decide if she will undergo the strain, rigors, and risk of pregnancy, as well as her right to enjoy a private and intimate relationship with her physician, free of outside interference - are at stake is without question. If you don't believe this, consider the fact that the first thing abortion opponents say do is scream, "What about the (unborn) baby?!?!?" If there were no "baby" at stake, would we even be having this argument? Judge Bork used to say "no", but what he meant by that was that SDP is a crock, and that legislatures have a right to regulate women (or anybody else, for that matter) to within an inch of their lives.

IOW, Bork and other opponents of SDP believed (and still believe, for Thomas is no different than Bork in his beliefs on this subject) that States can do just about any damned thing they want with their little playthings citizens, and nobody can tell them otherwise. Who would want to live in a society like that?!?

In the presence of SDP, however, that "baby" becomes an issue. While a woman has the right to have whatever medical procedure she wishes (so long as no other compelling state interest is involved), such as having her ears bobbed to look like an elf, when it comes to abortion there is the claim that another life is involved. Harry Blackmun knew this, and addressed it in Roe. Whether he addressed it well is a matter for some debate, but it's not like he never considered the question.

The problem for abortion opponents is essentially this: They can scream that "life begins at the moment of conception" until the cows come home, but that's not a given; more importantly, it may not even be relevant. For starters, the question of when life begins is not as important as the question of when the public's interest in an unborn child begins, and on that issue Blackmun could find no consensus. Opponents of abortion can, of course - but only by reference to their faith and their fundamental religious beliefs. They can try to work backwards from there, reverse-engineering an argument based on biology, but such an argument is both flimsy and - again - unsupported by our common legal experience.

Supreme Court rulings can't be based on someone's faith; they can't be based on someone's philosophy; and they can't be based on someone's morality. More importantly, once SDP gets invoked, they can't be allowed to differ from one state to another - or at least they can't when it comes to the part that intrudes upon someones' rights. Whether judicial conservatives like Bork or Thomas like it or not, your Constitutional rights are the same whether you live in Texas or in New York. Blackmun had to find some basis on which to draw a line - because clearly American legal experience doesn't extend the same protection to blastocysts as it does to fetuses moments from being born.

In his notes, Blackmun indicated that he considered several possible places to draw that line - quickening, post-natal viability, etc. - but that based on what was being discussed (a ban on medical procedures aimed at terminating pregnancy), the consensus of American legal experience appeared to be make post-natal viability the best test (there were far too many examples of abortion bans that permitted the practice after quickening for the line to be safely drawn there). Blackmun's reasoning on this point can certainly be challenged, but it is important to understand what challenging it would mean for America, as well as what challenging the entire foundation of Roe on SDP would mean for human liberty in this country - and not just for women.

Constitutional law has been likened to a tapestry; rulings get woven together to form a living legal framework. Rip a thread out of that fabric, and other threads, loosened, may unravel. Reversing Roe, depending on how it is done, could have massive ramifications for the relationship between Americans and their government.

Here are several points on which a future Supreme Court could reasonably challenge Roe, and their effects:

• Blackmun's "Rigid Trimester Analysis": In defining the "post-natal viability" line (Blackmun's choice of where to permit the state a compelling enough interest to override a woman's right to determine whether or not to remain pregnant, as well as to dictate her own medical care - fundamental rights absent any such compelling interest), Blackmun decided that the third trimester represented that point at which a fetus could survive on its own ex utero (assuming appropriate medical care). Any child born after that period (naturally or through a C-section) is generally capable of surviving on its own and - if removed from its mother's womb - would be considered a legal person in whom the state might have a compelling interest (in terms of affording it protection from harm under murder statutes, for instance). Prior to that point, however, a fetus removed from its mother's womb could not hope to survive, and thus was not (in Blackmun's opinion) someone in whom the state could reasonably show an interest (at least as far as protective law is concerned), in so far as all possible medical outcomes would result in its rapid death.
  
  Since 1973, advances in medical technology have arguably pushed that admittedly arbitrary line back a bit. 22 weeks is now considered the current limit on viability. At one point, abortion opponents argued that fetal lung development was a better measure of viability, a position which reinforces the 22-week line. One approach to Roe would be to refine it rather than overturning it, allowing states to ban abortion after 22 weeks (although they would not be able to ban removal of the fetus to an incubator if such a move posed no significant risk to the life and health of the infant, and the "medical necessity" rule established in Doe v. Bolton (1973) would still allow abortions post-viability where a woman's physician deemed them appropriate).
  
  To some extent, this approach has already been used to weaken Roe: It was the foundation on which the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). As medical technology improves, further erosion of Roe will almost certainly occur along these lines.
  
  That said, this is clearly not good enough for abortion opponents.
  
  
• Quickening (or some other rule) Instead of Post-Natal Viability: "Quickening" - the first noticeable movement of a fetus within the womb - is much harder to define; absent ultrasound, women would tend to feel the first stirrings of an unborn child at 18-20 weeks during their first pregnancy and at 15-17 weeks in subsequent pregnancies; some have reported sensations as early as 14 weeks.
  
  English common law usually held quickening to be the point at which laws pertaining to abortion could be applied; Blackmun rejected the use of quickening as a point at which a compelling state interest appears based on American legal tradition, but that could be argued by others. Such a rule would potentially shave 2-3 months off the length of time a "pro-life" legislature has to wait to ban abortion, effectively replacing a "second-trimester rule" with a "first-trimester rule". That said, it is unlikely that any Supreme Court could return to anything like Blackmun's "rigid trimester analysis" (see above) in place of some rule based on medical practice.
  
  While such a change would place a significant burden on pregnant women who sought abortions, and would almost certainly reduce the number of abortions performed within the United States significantly, it would not have far-reaching ramifications for other SDP-based rulings.
  
  At the same time, it would still leave abortion largely legal in America, and would certainly not satisfy the anti-abortion crowd.
  
  
• Conception Instead of Post-Natal Viability: The effect of a ruling that a compelling state interest exists from conception onward in favor of permitting the prohibition of abortion would be a radical decision; much would depend on how it was reached.
  
  For example, it would be hard to make the argument that "life begins at conception" without the Court embracing some sort of religious doctrine. A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a legislature's decision to uphold religious morality and belief trumps personal liberty, except where the liberty in question is explicitly guaranteed within the actual text of the Constitution would be a huge blow to freedom in America; so-called "red states" could proceed to take us back to the 19th Century with all manner of laws aimed at curbing "immoral" and "libertine" behavior in defense of religious sensibilities. This is one example of how a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe could rob all of us of our liberty - and not just women.
  
  Alternately, a secularist approach to defining a compelling state interest in "defending human life" from conception onwards (for the sake of population control, or whatever) would have an equally far-reaching impact on other rights; after all, if legislatures can tell women they have to remain pregnant for the sake of future unborn citizens, then surely businesses can be regulated to within an inch of their existence for the sake of future economic or environmental conditions. Again, the prospects for the erosion of our liberties through such a ruling are many and broad.
  
  
• The Legal Personhood of the Unborn: Current Court doctrine recognizes a compelling state interest in unborn infants post-viability, but does not afford them full legal personhood. Many abortion advocates seek to use the 14th Amendment as a vehicle to ban abortion by arguing that unborn fetuses ought to be classed as legal persons.
  
  It should be noted that a ruling pushing back the point at which the state can declare that it has a compelling interest in an unborn child which does not extend that unborn child personhood is less intrusive of a woman's rights than one that does. In the present legal environment, no outside party can present itself as an "ombudsman" or "defender" of the "legal rights" of an unborn child and challenge its mother's "treatment" of that child (by insisting, for example, that she not drink or smoke, that she give up work, etc.). In the event that unborn children gain effective legal standing, the consequences would be far reaching. Not only would the possibility of state regulation of a pregnant woman's life in detail come one step closer to reality (along with the prospect of a court-appointed "guardian" challenging or even managing her behavior at every step along the way), but questions of citizenship also arise (and you though birtherism was insane...).
  
  
• Rejection of Substantive Due Process: This was the brass ring Bork and others wanted to grab, and I fear this is the most likely line of attack by those who seek to overturn Roe. Rejecting the idea that government must justify its laws when those laws curtail individual liberty, either by discarding strict scrutiny or even denying rational basis (because laws inspired by religious morality cannot be said to enjoy any rational basis - aside, perhaps, from the notion that they make religious voters happy) would go a long way towards destroying individual liberty. Strangely, a great many faux libertarians on the right would applaud this.

I realize I've said a lot here. Hopefully, I've given many of you pause to realize that Roe was not just some ruling plucked out of Harry Blackmun's pocket, and that it has a place in American Constitutional law. Throwing it out might well mean throwing out a lot of other rulings we've grown used to - and the liberties those rulings have given us.

[Nulono]

It is certainly NOT true that personhood of the unborn must be based in religion any more than personhood of the born must be based in religion. It is also grasping for straws to say that telling a mother she can't kill her child means that the government can control their every action. We have personhood for infants, but we don't supervise everything parents do.

[Nulono]

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.

The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

[Unchecked Expansion]

It is certainly NOT true that personhood of the unborn must be based in religion any more than personhood of the born must be based in religion.

Well, it isn't based on reason

[Nulono]

It is certainly NOT true that personhood of the unborn must be based in religion any more than personhood of the born must be based in religion.

Well, it isn't based on reason

It most certainly is. It's not reasonable to grant rights based on one's capabilities. Every human being is a person.

[Alien Space Bats]

It is certainly NOT true that personhood of the unborn must be based in religion any more than personhood of the born must be based in religion.

Give me a legal foundation for doing it within the context of American common law, then.

Preferably, one that isn't circular.

It is also grasping for straws to say that telling a mother she can't kill her child means that the government can control their every action. We have personhood for infants, but we don't supervise everything parents do.

I take it you've never had to deal with Child Protective Services.