Law School Discussion

And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions

Stencilasnusky

Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2006, 10:06:30 AM »
Let me assume that you are making a serious point. In that case you believe that (1) life begins at conception? and (2) if (1) is true, then terminating it is murder and (3) the right to determine how the child comes to life/if the child comes to life is at the minimum a joint decision. What is the definition (legally speaking) of life if we say it begins at conception (2) if a woman consumed an expired drug while pregnant which causes her to lose the baby, could she be charged with negligent homicide? and (3) does the mere act of providing sperm during fertilizaton generate a tenable security interest in the pregancy and if so does this security interest carry with it the risk of liability.. I'm just asking these questions to generate debate and discussion..I can never have an abortion since I don't have a womb but I would like the right to try and think carefully how this applies to the reality on the ground. I support reasonable restrictions on abortion (just like we have reaasonable restrictions on operating motor vehicles, firearms, the right to vote etc)..but some think because Roe was not decided by legislative action that the holding was "wrongly decided" (whatever that means). To me the holding, in as much as it is a tragic option, makes sense.

 


Are you kidding? If I get 5 chicks pregnant, those are MY babies, and NO one has the right to kill them before they're born!

By the way, I'm not paying child support.

<"W" suit off>

Yale College Inferno

  • ****
  • 2107
  • New daily nonstop to Hell
    • View Profile
Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2006, 10:12:34 AM »
Um, didn't you see that I was wearing the "W" suit?

Stencilasnusky

Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2006, 10:39:02 AM »
I know that DAMMITT :P..I was just taking what you mentioned to ask questions that's all..round where I'm from, lots of folks believe that stuff.


Um, didn't you see that I was wearing the "W" suit?

_BP_

  • ****
  • 2565
  • Think. Wait. Fast.
    • View Profile
Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2006, 10:53:55 AM »
Interesting conundrum I saw on C&L.  A guy called into a right-wing radio talk show and the talk show host erupted in a rage when the guy asked this question that brought the entire "life begins at conception" thingy to the forefront.  The talk show host was unable to admit that one would save the two-year old child.

If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?

Stencilasnusky

Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2006, 11:22:49 AM »
how about these scenarios....
1.I walk up to a sperm bank to drop some load and another lady comes and donates an egg..and both egg and sperm get matched..if we are compensated for it are we guily of human trafficking?
Or
2. I'm a fertility doctor and I place the petri dish in storage and it happens to crack and the contents leak..have I committed murder?

Interesting conundrum I saw on C&L.  A guy called into a right-wing radio talk show and the talk show host erupted in a rage when the guy asked this question that brought the entire "life begins at conception" thingy to the forefront.  The talk show host was unable to admit that one would save the two-year old child.

If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?

Yale College Inferno

  • ****
  • 2107
  • New daily nonstop to Hell
    • View Profile
Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2006, 12:02:52 PM »
how about these scenarios....
1.I walk up to a sperm bank to drop some load and another lady comes and donates an egg..and both egg and sperm get matched..if we are compensated for it are we guily of human trafficking?
Probably not, even if we accepted the questionable premise that life begins at conception, because the sperm and egg that payment was made for were both pre-conception. Similarly, life ends with death, so people who handle organs for transplant aren't trafficking in human beings, other.

Or
2. I'm a fertility doctor and I place the petri dish in storage and it happens to crack and the contents leak..have I committed murder?
Actually, that would be manslaughter.  :P

Stencilasnusky

Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2006, 12:24:36 PM »
same difference in either case..James Dobson and his wingut crowd would hang my UGK butt right on the first tree they see..


Or
2. I'm a fertility doctor and I place the petri dish in storage and it happens to crack and the contents leak..have I committed murder?
Actually, that would be manslaughter.  :P
[/quote]

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2006, 05:16:23 PM »
This ridiculous law has zero chance of being upheld in any court and won't prevent a single abortion from being performed. Anywhere. It will, however, help tip many moderate and independent voters toward the Democrats in the fall elections now that it's clear that many Republicans really are intent on taking away a woman's right to choose.

good point

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2006, 05:28:13 PM »
IF the Supreme Court grants cert over this--and it's entirely possible that they won't--all they can do is rule on the merits of this particular statute. This means that they can overturn Roe and Casey outright and affirm the statute, or they can strike it down (it clearly poses an undue burden on access to abortions), which seems to be the more likely response at this time. If the court strikes the statute down, it might include some completely spontaneous dicta about permissible restrictions on abortion (to guide legislatures), but that dicta wouldn't be remotely binding and probalby wouldn't signal the entire Court's position anyway. The Court can't really say "this statute is unconstitutional, but by the way, we think X, Y, and Z restrictions are fine, if anybody was wondering."

So don't get your hopes up that any litigation over this statute is going to change the status quo.

Your analysis is on point, and you are correct that Dicta is never binding, HOWEVER don't be too dismissive in the posibility of the Court taking "Ye Grand Old" oportunity to overrule Roe or Casey or Both.  You never know how these things will come out.  When Casey was before the Court, everybody just knew that the court was going to overrule Roe, and it almost did had it not been for O'Connor.  So watch out.

I think this law is without even a rational basis, personally, but even still, if that's what it takes to open the eyes of band-waggon conservatives out there then so be it.  Maybe, just maybe, the answer to every problem is not to take away people's rights.  Just maybe.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: And So it Begins...South Dakota Bans Abortions
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2006, 05:48:53 PM »

In his message, Governor Rounds noted that the Supreme Court has reversed decisions before. He cited the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that said states could require racial segregation in public facilities if the facilities were "separate, but equal." That ruling was reversed in Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 school desegregation case.

"The 1954 court realized that the earlier interpretation of our Constitution was wrong," Governor Rounds said.

AND ANOTHER THING...

I'm getting really tired of Republicans (or anybody else for that matter) analogizing the overturning of Stare Decisis in Brown v. Board with the overturning of Stare Decisis in Roe v. Wade.  It is the judicial equivalent of comparing apples to oranges.  "well, I reckon we stopped segregation so we should stop abortion."  Stop it already.  That is not a sound argument!!!  The two have nothing to do with each other and I wish they'd stop using Brown to justify an attack on Roe.  If all you're trying to say is that case law can get overturned, well NO KIDDING, GENIUS!!!  The grass is green and the sky is blue.  By the way, 2 plus 2 equals 4 and cat starts with the letter "C".  Stop riding off the coat tails of Brown and what Brown stands for and get your own LEGITIMATE reason for overturning Roe.