Courts have already routinely been deciding these issues. Roe may be in jeopardy, but there have always been pregnant women dying under different tragic circumstances.
indeed, and this provides something of a window into out societal mores, but, and this is a non-trivial but, the question of "is this a thing we should leave to courts to decide?" remains.
It was decided judicially because some people did not like unfavorable political outcomes. Others did not like that there were different political outcomes in different jurisdictions. Some people also figured that if the Court settled it, it would be settled for all time. How poorly they anticipated the near non-stop wrangling -- legal and extralegal -- that followed for nearly a half-century.
Never mind the extreme politicization of the courts. Not that that began with Roe, but Roe certainly cast a long shadow.
The courts are (or are supposed to be) deciding these cases based on statues in the case of criminal matters or prior decisions in that state in the case of tort claims. And btw that means these matters are often decided by jury.
I'm not sure how many state statutes speak to crimes involving babies in the womb, but what's your point? Should we revisit all those decisions to criticize them? Or to learn from them and see their consequences? And do you really think this is an area where, if we aren't legislating, we need to start doing so? Maybe, but maybe not.
my point is that if we establish a specific point at which an embryo becomes a person and therefore possesses right, that all this patchwork ambiguity ceases and that we can bring all such laws into alignment with when a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy as a function of her self determination and when such a right is superseded by another person's right not to be killed and the care owed to a child by a parent.
I agree with you with respect to the crime of abortion. IтАЩm not so sure thatтАЩs true with all other torts and crimes involving pregnant women and their babies. There it may be better for judges and jurors to be able to apply justice or mercy as the particular circumstances merit, especially where - in sharp distinction to abortion- the act is not premeditated.
Courts have already routinely been deciding these issues. Roe may be in jeopardy, but there have always been pregnant women dying under different tragic circumstances.
indeed, and this provides something of a window into out societal mores, but, and this is a non-trivial but, the question of "is this a thing we should leave to courts to decide?" remains.
is that an outcome we want?
It was decided judicially because some people did not like unfavorable political outcomes. Others did not like that there were different political outcomes in different jurisdictions. Some people also figured that if the Court settled it, it would be settled for all time. How poorly they anticipated the near non-stop wrangling -- legal and extralegal -- that followed for nearly a half-century.
Never mind the extreme politicization of the courts. Not that that began with Roe, but Roe certainly cast a long shadow.
The courts are (or are supposed to be) deciding these cases based on statues in the case of criminal matters or prior decisions in that state in the case of tort claims. And btw that means these matters are often decided by jury.
this seems a circular argument.
most of those came from courts.
statute is silent in the US on the time at which cells in a uterus become a person with rights.
I'm not sure how many state statutes speak to crimes involving babies in the womb, but what's your point? Should we revisit all those decisions to criticize them? Or to learn from them and see their consequences? And do you really think this is an area where, if we aren't legislating, we need to start doing so? Maybe, but maybe not.
my point is that if we establish a specific point at which an embryo becomes a person and therefore possesses right, that all this patchwork ambiguity ceases and that we can bring all such laws into alignment with when a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy as a function of her self determination and when such a right is superseded by another person's right not to be killed and the care owed to a child by a parent.
I agree with you with respect to the crime of abortion. IтАЩm not so sure thatтАЩs true with all other torts and crimes involving pregnant women and their babies. There it may be better for judges and jurors to be able to apply justice or mercy as the particular circumstances merit, especially where - in sharp distinction to abortion- the act is not premeditated.