BREAKING: Federal Judge Declares Texas Abortion Restrictions Unconstitutional

Townhall ^ | October 28, 2013 | Christine Rousselle

[Kevmo]

I’m ignoring the slave reparation because it’s not relevant to the unborn baby discussion.
***It is relevant. I described how it’s relevant. It appears that you simply don’t like where that leads, but that is immaterial. If you don’t want to acknowledge a simple truth that brings us to my simple approach then we run out of common ground.

We never had any such agreement.
***Where do I use the word “agreement”? You use it, and then you reinforce my point (knocking down your own) by saying that Roe v Wade overturned such an “agreement”. If “we never had any such agreement”, then how did Roe overturn such an agreement?

Why would we feel obligated to hold to prior views that were faulty?
***I said so in the original post. It became settled law, culturally accepted. Even Jews accepted abortion for ages due to the same conditions. I don’t see that such a settled cultural issue over multiple generations can be changed in the next couple of years, but my proposal could be implemented in a couple of years. Eventually, if my proposal were in place, then those advances in age of viability would be built into the protection offered to unborn children, and abortion would soon no longer be viewed as a culturally accepted form of birth control.

[Gil4]

“I described how it’s relevant.”
I understand that slaves were given a different value in Exodus, but I don’t see that same valuation on the unborn in that chapter. I don’t have a philosophical problem with the concept that God could value the unborn less than an adult. I have a textual problem with it - I don’t see where He actually said it. Perhaps you have another passage in mind?

“Where do I use the word “agreement”?”

Maybe I misunderstood the implications of “we once considered” and “We as a society thought.” That sounded like agreement to me. What I was saying was we as a society had an agreement through our elected representatives that it should not be legal and 9 tyrants in robes decided they didn’t like it.

I will grant that after Roe we did reach a point where we had fairly wide support for abortion, but that support has been eroding for the past 25 years or so, although it is still fairly broad. I will also grant that the agreement of the people I cited was only an agreement of the people of the state of Texas. But even if support for abortion collapses, we will still have the nine tyrants chanting stare decisis to contend with. (Why is law only settled when Democrats like it?)

“Even Jews accepted abortion for ages due to the same conditions.” Please clarify this, especially “for ages.”

One more note - on your 2nd tier you had “Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy...” I have several concerns about that: 1. It would encourage false rape reporting (that was Norma McCorvey first step before suing and becoming Jane Roe) and possibly false prosecutions. The limits on evidence that the defense can bring are such that false convictions are likely. 2. Why isn’t this part of tier 3? 3. Why are we punishing an innocent party?

[Kevmo]

I understand that slaves were given a different value in Exodus
***Humans are valued differently. That is relevant. Unborn humans are valued differently (otherwise it would have simply been the same as for adults, an “eye for an eye”). So, basically you’re saying you accept it until it disproves your point.

“We as a society
***Again, you’re saying you accept it until it disproves your point.

especially “for ages.”
***For the last 2500 years or so. I gather you’ll accept that until it disproves your point.

1. It would encourage false rape reporting (that was Norma McCorvey first step before suing and becoming Jane Roe) and possibly false prosecutions.
***I’m aware of that. But even McCorvey’s lawyers considered it inconsequential. Basically, a rape case is not a death penalty issue, so there is no life at stake. But in abortion, there is a life at stake. It is worth erring on the side of caution when it comes to life. And rape cases that are claimed 3 weeks after the event with no physical evidence are an obvious blinking red light of bullshit, so I don’t worry about the issue that much.

First google hit on “Norma McCorvey” rape case

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionus/a/norma_mccorvey.htm

She initially said that her third pregnancy, the one in question at the time of Roe v. Wade, was the result of rape, but years later she said she had invented the rape story in an attempt to make a stronger case for an abortion. The rape story was of little consequence to her lawyers, because they wanted to establish a right to abortion for all women, not just those who had been raped.

The limits on evidence that the defense can bring are such that false convictions are likely.
***I’d be willing to debate this point if it were really important. Since Roe v Wade, the tremendous advances of genetics can prove a defendant innocent today, wherein it could not be done in the past.

2. Why isn’t this part of tier 3? 3. Why are we punishing an innocent party?
***Innocent parties don’t leave DNA in a woman’s genital areas, so I don’t think your point is well made.