I may be wrong, but one side seemed to be talking legally while the other mainly answered politically. Very good points in general, but way too many politics from one side where the issue discussed was being tackled from a legal perspective.
So, Glendon. That. The fundamental flaw in Roe, in my opinion, traces to the muddled logic whereby the Court decided, de facto, when human life begins (or at least when it does NOT begin) while pretending not to have done so. They went through the rigamarole of an overview on the issue of "when life begins," then threw up their hands and said the court couldn't speculate on that. Blatantly disingenuous! If the Court intended to render a decision, and certainly it did, then it could not NOT address the issue, since permitting abortion without meaningful restrictions was to decide, de facto, that human life did not begin at conception. I'm with Glendon on this. Roe should go. Send it back to the states and let's try to get this, if not "right," at least better than we have it now.
Professor Gerson, With regards to Mr. Justice Blackmun’s opinion on Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), does medical advice bleed into socioeconomic well-being of the mother in your opinion? Thank you. Sincerely, R.W.N II
That would be an egregious understatment to say that Reva Siegel, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School was seething hard for the whole lecture, lol
Yet another example - POLITICS v LAW The debate about Roe v Wade seems uniquely able to expose the fundamental disagreement about the proper role of the judiciary. It’s so clear to me that the supreme court has absolutely no business behaving this way.
As an outsider looking in, the first lady who was pro knocking down Roe drew her conclusions from legal fact and logic, the second lady came across as an activist who didn't have a backing of law and logic. She came off second best easily.
It isn’t a metaphysical view that the fetus is a human being, it is a scientific view. A human being’s life begins at conception according to the science of embryology. The question is whether it is developed enough to deserve legal protection or not. People can disagree but we should be clear on what is being killed
Conception signals the beginning of a potential human life, but it is not yet a viable independent life, scientifically, nor is it a person, legally. Facts and definitions matter precisely because of the myriad ramifications that flow from them. Thus, the simplistic view that a zygote is a ‘human’ with full rights of personhood is about as naïve as we can get in this discussion.
@@WUWHere it’s not a potential human being at conception, whatever that means, it is an actual human being. You just don’t think the embryo/fetus is developed enough to deserve legal protection. It’s not clear if you think it can be protected at any stage of pregnancy. Do you think it should be legal to slaughter this human being right up to the moment of birth? But what is the difference between a human being 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after? I’m not claiming it’s a person in a US constitutional sense. Don’t put words in my mouth. The state can still protect it. If the state can protect a bald eagle’s life it can protect a fetus
@@gopher7691 , when I eat scrambled eggs, am I eating a chicken, or a potential chicken? This is not a facetious question. Think about it. Also, a very large percentage of pregnancies naturally end up as miscarriages. Isn’t it odd that we call them miscarriages and not abortions? I really don’t believe you have given this claim that an embryo is a full human vested with the rights of a post-birth human enough thought. Have you ever been involved with the termination of a pregnancy that you created? I have. Do you have kids? I do, and 5 grandkids. Let me say there is absolutely no equivalence between an aborted 16 week old fetus and my born children. None. Also, as is usual for those making the claims you do, I am sure there is no woman that would consent to a late term abortion unless there was a legitimate medical reason. This idea that someone would support termination of a viable pregnancy up until birth is a spurious made up claim. Finally, no mention of the woman in all your thoughts? Her rights don’t enter into your views on abortion? Why is that?
@@gopher7691 , to be clear, I’m not saying there can exist no restrictions on abortion. The restrictions just have to make sense. Find me someone somewhere that believes that a pregnancy with a viable fetus can be terminated right before birth. Where do you get such nonsensical ideas from? And, there is no logical difference between a human 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after birth. How is that the least bit important to this discussion? And, if you are not claiming that an unborn pre-viable embryo/fetus is a person in the Constitutional sense, please clarify what you mean and what constitutional differences in your opinion apply to the unborn. As for protecting bald eagles, you understand they have at times been threatened with extinction, right? I don’t think humans have in their history ever been threatened with extinction, although we are moving in that direction. If you are going to offer a metaphorical example, make sure it is logically relevant.
Waa, waa, waa. Ms Seigel, it was Obama that said elections have consequences. Merrick Garland has shown he tilts the scales of justice along party lines.
The world that all of us live in it is one that involves raped against women, incest, and often raped at home by robbery situtations. Row v. Wade involves families rights to decide their number in family members. The 14 th Amendment that involves Liberty. Women have rights that society must take under consideration. In particular, please think of the amount of women that live in poverty, almost 80% of females live and die in poverty. Men don't take good care of them after marriage. I think that women divide themselves in many people to care for their families, children, husband and career. Yet we end our life in poverty and society doesn't even pay them the same amount of money for the same position as of a men. Men control most of society activities, our body is our own to care for it and love, to have an abortion is something that should not even be argued by so many people and society in general. To have control over our bodies and be pay the same for equal job position is not much to ask from society and The Supreme Court. We are not killing human life. It is a fetus that had not even been form yet. Such is the reason biology and medicine call them fetus. A baby from my point of view is the moment in which a doctor cuts the umbilical cord and as baby take the first breath of air in the world becomes a baby and is human life. Babies don't have a brain fully developed until four years of age. Let the decision stand is not reason to attack women for their right or wrong decision. There is not an argument that angers me more than reverse Roe v. Wade and go back to the dark age, where females had to travel to have a Doctor providing an illegal abortion. So many Doctors have risk their lives for performing ilegal abortions. Many of them have killed women while performing illegal abortions. We cannot go back to such a misery, when we go back into the past nothing good or productive can become.
And are you advocating the murder of children up to four years old?? And for the record, your brain isn’t actually fully developed until the age of 25! What say you??
Thank you so much ladies. I live in California and love to study the law is important but also I had study biology to know exactly what a fetus is and how is formed, I love to be inform. Seems I read textbooks, no fun reading at all.
I love how supporters of overturning Roe claim this decision should be "up to the people" while simultaneously supporting partisan gerrymandering that means that not everyone has an equal say in the process. This is the type of cherry picking to support bad faith that I have come to expect in American politics. If unenumerated rights are unconstitutional then we should expect Citizens United to receive the same treatment. These are originalists on the court, are they not? Would they possibly be lying to support their narrow view of the constitution when it suits their political goals? Certainly not, right? Where does the constitution say that money is speech? Where does it say that corporations are people despite corporations being effectively immortal on one hand and on the other hand able to destroyed at the stroke of a pen? If corporations are people, by the reasoning of Dobbs, then it should be illegal to eliminate one for any reason, yet it's common to shift legal liabilities from one corporation to another, then file for bankruptcy for the new entity that has subsumed all the legal liability as a means to avoid civil litigation for a product from the original company that has harmed actual living people. Lets face it, you can legally argue any side of a case which is why slavery was legal for so long in this country and others. Do we want to continue going down this path? I'd argue opponents of Roe are extremely shortsighted, they do not foresee this precedent will be used against them but were voting in this country to be overhauled to actually allow the majority to voice their opinion, opponents of Roe will face a lot of things they might have never seen coming.
Both sides gerrymander and no one party supports it. Ask any person if they think gerrymandering should be done and they will answer no. Politicans trying to rig the system isnt anything new. You are being disingenuous if you think it's only one side.
@@TheCrimson7272 It's overwhelmingly Republicans that will do this, numerous Democratic states shot themselves in the foot by appointing non-partisan redistricting so please tell me how it's equal on both sides.
Every time pro-life choose to mention Germany and Italy as an example of anti abortion bans, they forget to mention that they have approaches that fits for them.They have free health care, free education as well as fully paid maternity leave, which in the United States we have none of those.
Wonder what would happen to the abortion industry if the law was that the genetic parents of every infant be identified and are jointly responsible for that child until it reaches the age of self determination. Talk about men paying closer attention to their part in the begating.
Frustrating discussion. Near the end they started to approach the fundamental question of whether a life with all the rights vested in personhood begins at conception and whether that entity in the uterus has rights that arguably supersede those of the pregnant person. Any understanding of this issue, and any decision about the legality or constitutionality of abortion, must acknowledge several facts that are rarely part of discussions by people with opposing views: 1. Fundamentally and universally, men and women should have equal rights which include the right to bodily autonomy. 2. Only a person with a uterus can become pregnant and birth a child. This biologic inequality and burden affects only women or people with a uterus and therefore, in terms of human reproduction, men and women are inherently unequal. This aspect of the biologic inequality of the sexes has no other corollary in the law and requires that there be a distinct area of law that addresses and protects the reproductive rights of women and their bodily autonomy. 3. A human life begins, genetically and scientifically, at conception. A zygote or a fetus is not a functional human (scientifically speaking) or a person (legally speaking) pre-viability outside a uterus. Therefore, it cannot be argued in any convincing way that the pre-viable entity inside a uterus has full rights that supersede those of the pregnant woman. 4. At minimum, government or community should not be allowed to coerce women to end a pregnancy, nor should a women be coerced to carry a pre-viable pregnancy to term. Human reproduction and pregnancy are unique situations that are fundamental to women and must be considered differently (i.e. specific and exclusive to women) under the law. And because they affect women universally, the rights afforded women to control their reproductive destiny must be universal and not left to the whim of voters or individual states. Someone needs to explain to Glendon that Universal human rights are superior to religion-based rights.
What is a “functional human”? A fetus is functioning. It is growing and developing the whole time it is in the womb. Unless of course it is torn into pieces by an abortionist. Then it is a corpse. Your addled word salad is just the usual attempt by a pro choicer to cover up the reality of the barbarity of abortion
No one has a right to kill a human being just because it is inconvenient. The communists and the Nazis thought so last century and turned Europe into a charnel house. You pro choicers don’t know how dangerous your thinking is. If you can kill a helpless innocent unborn human being in the womb no one is safe. Killing for convenience is barbarous and should not be tolerated in a civilized society
@@gopher7691, I did provide a definition of sorts, if you would bother to read carefully. By functional I mean a fetus that is viable outside the womb. Like I mentioned in my first reply, I have two children. They were functioning humans when they were born. The 16 week old fetus my then girlfriend (later my wife and mother of my two kids) was not a functional or viable human being when it was aborted. People like you wish to reduce the thorny questions of life to pat absolutist decisions that ignore the messiness of the real world. Beyond pre-viable fetuses, what other issues of an existential nature evokes such passion for you? War? Climate change? Poverty and food insecurity? Nuclear weapons? Domestic terrorism? Tell me.
@@WUWHere killing innocent human beings is pretty high on my list of things to resist. I’m sorry you support it Why didn’t you say viable then? Functional doesn’t distinguish a fetus from a born human being. They are both functioning. Typical pro choice abuse of language
Where does a woman’s right to choose end and the unborn child’s rights to life start? In my opinion, that’s the question that must be decided. It’s a sliding scale that as each day and month passes moves from the mother towards the unborn child. I don’t believe that just because the female is the one carrying the baby that it gives her absolute rights over the life of the unborn child from conception to birth. In my opinion, after looking at medical information, that after the first trimester the child has its own right to life. Now, this could and should be debated, but somewhere in the time between conception and before birth the child’s right to life takes precedence over the woman’s right to choose. The physical health of the mother and possibly rape or incest are exceptions that should be debated.
@Ndeye Delgado Who looks after the rights of the unborn. After 3 months they have their own right to life which takes precedence over the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy. A woman's first choice is to not have unprotected sex unless she wants a child.
@Ndeye Delgado can't that same argument be used to oppose any gun regulation period? At least guns have the 2nd ammendment expressly protecting them too
@Ndeye Delgado The fetus as you call them, at a certain stage has rights to. The only debate is where that right starts. A woman's first CHOICE is to not have unprotected sex until you are ready to have a child. I have not heard one pro-choice person mentioning that. It is just let us use abortion as birth control.
@Ndeye Delgado Fair, I reread your comments. First, Having unprotected sex still falls on the woman because she is the one left with the baby. That's reality. Second, don't get silly saying life begins with ejaculation. My position is after the first trimester the child has its own right to life.Third, the VAST majority use abortion as contraception. And that is not just a promiscuous persons. Think back on your own sexual history. How often did you have unprotected sex just because in the moment that thought went out the window? There are a lot of those. Now for those who did everything right. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand. You had the green light but got killed by a drunken driver. running a red light. We are talking about human life which in my world takes presence over inconvenience or even genuine unfortunate circumstances.
The majority of Americans believe abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances at an early stage of pregnancy.For 50 years feminists have been screaming that this decision is between a woman and her doctor.That is wrong because it translates into abortion on demand.Roe has to go and it will!
And a woman has no right to end a human life. The 10th amendment says questions like that are for the states and the people. The amendment process is clear. The supreme court has no part in it. I remember the way it was before Roe vs Wade decision. Perfect? No. Better for we the people? Absolutely. Precedent setting decisions are inherently violations of precedent.
@@randomdude7384 Your body is your body. You're free to do as you please with it. Right up until you hurt or kill someone else. Then a civil society will give you what you deserve.
The women are already pregnant (and in 99% of cases, by their own willing actions) so the state didnt coerce them into it. However, the state has the right to protect its citizens, and an unborn baby at 6 months to term has been considered by 75%+ of states to be a person worth protecting. So why does it start at 6 months? Why not 3 months? Why not conception? These questions have different interpretations that can vary widely by demographic. That is why roe was overturned, among other sound legal reasons.
I have worked for Mass General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital before, two principle teaching hospitals for Harvard Medical School. I graduated from Boston Latin School, for whose first graduating class Harvard was founded one year later in 1636. I trained as a pharmacist. The “pro-choice” slogan is a pseudoscientific slogan. Every unborn child received 23 chromosomes from his father’s sperm, and 23 chromosomes from his mother’s ovum. He is a genetically different individual from either one of his parents. His life is not for his mother to decide because he is not genetically and biologically the woman’s body. He grows in the placenta and thus is life. Half of unborn babies are male, further proving unborn babies aren’t part of the women’s bodies. Abortion is homicide and unlawful taking of someone else’s body in every sense. There is a medical field out there called OB/GYN taking care of pregnant women and unborn children. The reason they don’t use “pro-abortion” is that it sounds cruel and wicked. To make people swallow this murderous scheme, they come up with a euphemistic sounding term “pro”, a positive word, and “choice”, another positive word. The only “choice” she has is her own body, so she can abort herself. But she is aborting someone else’s body, and that is murder. No one should be given the “right” to murder. And it’s not a privacy issue either. Imagine someone killing another person in his house while claiming “privacy right” because that’s his house. It’s murder, so no one should be given the “right” to murder, and murder shouldn’t be legalized as a “right”. Rights are usually taken away from criminals and murderers. Just check the correction systems in the US.
@@AWMusicChannel Yoi are comparing apples to oranges. Human are different from animals. Nowadays, animals have more rights than unborn babies. So let’s stay at the topic of abortion of a human baby. You give the scenario of you committing suicide while you are pregnant. I don’t know how you fail to die but end up killing your own baby. But if you are in a Republican state with conservative values, you can be held accountable. Suicide means killing oneself. As pro-choice people keep promoting “my body my choice”, but I see none of them getting killed. They are killing others while claiming those are their bodies, which is a lie. An embryo needs the same things that keep us alive, shelter and food. If you are blasted outside of space with no oxygen, no food, no water and no shelter being in the extreme cold, you can’t survive on your own either. Does that mean you too are not alive and thus can also be aborted? And yes, I am still waiting for the lying “pro-choice” “my body my choice” people to abort themselves. Their bodies their choice, so when are you going to abort yourself?
@@AWMusicChannel Btw, abortion people have a lot of nice excuses. Millions of babies are aborted every single year not because of a depressed patient pregnant, or because of rape or incest, but because of people who can’t put their clothes on and can’t keep their legs closed. They are irresponsible with their birth control and let the children be killed indiscreetly. If you are depressed while pregnant and are suicidal, you should be confined in a psychiatric ward to prevent you from committing suicide. If you don’t end up dying from your supposed “suicide” while your child is killed in the process, that is homicide in every sense of the word, regardless of what those “pro-choice” pseudoscientific liars say.
@@AWMusicChannel 1. You're using an exceptional case to try to justify the ordinary case. Don't worry, the states will grapple with these sorts of issues. I doubt you'd be charged with committing abortion if that was a secondary effect. 2. I don't know if you should go to prison, but suicide should be made illegal again.
Seigel: Abortions lower infant mortality rates in Mississippi. Me: At some point, abortion is infant mortality. Mississippi: That point is 15 weeks. Seigel: Noooooo!🤯
Harvard law School is committed to rigorous discussion and generous listening of substanitive issues as long as they are confined to law books. Let them become real, and the faculty's check book will restrain it's sense of debate. Even if its the harassment and or rape of a student. But, to be fair, they are debaters of the law. They are not trained to DEFEND our values against tyranny and open crimes against the body.
being inside something is not the same as being part of something the autonomy demands that a Siamese has the right to commit suicide .. but shooting himself in the other head Fetal pain responses begin at week 8. Pain-sensitive transmitters are complete by week 14. By this time the cerebral cortex is 30-40% complete enough for pain transmitters and receptors to function in one go quite efficiently. William Liley, Mortimer Rosen confirmed that the response to pain is at least proportional to that amount. As you have seen, the assumption that pain cannot occur until the nervous system is complete is obviously wrong.
The supreme court ignoring Stare Decisis, and the constitution, and states, and the people is my business. A woman's uterus is none of the supreme court's nor the federal government's business either. How'd the life of that baby become solely the business of the people with uteruses? Don't get me wrong, my daughter should have had an abortion the moment they found she had a tubal pregnancy. By the time the fetus was as big as a peanut, it came within an eyelash in of killing her. Several miracles had to happen to save her. Odd that grey lady acts as though this is political. Roe v Wade decision denied government of, for, and by the people. (Half of which are tasked with protecting the half with uteruses) So yeah, that baby is the business of us all.
If you dont want an abortion dont have one, if i need an abortion to save my life, i will have one, you are not in my life so your opinion does not mean nothing to me, i dont care what politicians say, or what you say, my life, my choice, god gave me free will to do what i want to with my own body. So i do not care what anyone else thinks or says. Have a nice day
I may be wrong, but one side seemed to be talking legally while the other mainly answered politically. Very good points in general, but way too many politics from one side where the issue discussed was being tackled from a legal perspective.
Per Justice Sotomayor, this case reeks of politics, so it makes sense that politics should be dragged into the discussion.
So, Glendon. That. The fundamental flaw in Roe, in my opinion, traces to the muddled logic whereby the Court decided, de facto, when human life begins (or at least when it does NOT begin) while pretending not to have done so. They went through the rigamarole of an overview on the issue of "when life begins," then threw up their hands and said the court couldn't speculate on that. Blatantly disingenuous! If the Court intended to render a decision, and certainly it did, then it could not NOT address the issue, since permitting abortion without meaningful restrictions was to decide, de facto, that human life did not begin at conception. I'm with Glendon on this. Roe should go. Send it back to the states and let's try to get this, if not "right," at least better than we have it now.
Professor Gerson,
With regards to Mr. Justice Blackmun’s opinion on Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), does medical advice bleed into socioeconomic well-being of the mother in your opinion?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
R.W.N II
That would be an egregious understatment to say that Reva Siegel, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School was seething hard for the whole lecture, lol
This was well-moderated.
Yet another example - POLITICS v LAW
The debate about Roe v Wade seems uniquely able to expose the fundamental disagreement about the proper role of the judiciary. It’s so clear to me that the supreme court has absolutely no business behaving this way.
As an outsider looking in, the first lady who was pro knocking down Roe drew her conclusions from legal fact and logic, the second lady came across as an activist who didn't have a backing of law and logic.
She came off second best easily.
Typical
Interesting that Siegel also concedes that Roe is terribly flawed, but argues that Casey did enough to fix it.
Excellent delivery
It isn’t a metaphysical view that the fetus is a human being, it is a scientific view. A human being’s life begins at conception according to the science of embryology. The question is whether it is developed enough to deserve legal protection or not. People can disagree but we should be clear on what is being killed
Conception signals the beginning of a potential human life, but it is not yet a viable independent life, scientifically, nor is it a person, legally. Facts and definitions matter precisely because of the myriad ramifications that flow from them. Thus, the simplistic view that a zygote is a ‘human’ with full rights of personhood is about as naïve as we can get in this discussion.
@@WUWHere it’s not a potential human being at conception, whatever that means, it is an actual human being. You just don’t think the embryo/fetus is developed enough to deserve legal protection. It’s not clear if you think it can be protected at any stage of pregnancy. Do you think it should be legal to slaughter this human being right up to the moment of birth? But what is the difference between a human being 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after?
I’m not claiming it’s a person in a US constitutional sense. Don’t put words in my mouth. The state can still protect it. If the state can protect a bald eagle’s life it can protect a fetus
@@gopher7691 , when I eat scrambled eggs, am I eating a chicken, or a potential chicken? This is not a facetious question. Think about it. Also, a very large percentage of pregnancies naturally end up as miscarriages. Isn’t it odd that we call them miscarriages and not abortions? I really don’t believe you have given this claim that an embryo is a full human vested with the rights of a post-birth human enough thought. Have you ever been involved with the termination of a pregnancy that you created? I have. Do you have kids? I do, and 5 grandkids. Let me say there is absolutely no equivalence between an aborted 16 week old fetus and my born children. None. Also, as is usual for those making the claims you do, I am sure there is no woman that would consent to a late term abortion unless there was a legitimate medical reason. This idea that someone would support termination of a viable pregnancy up until birth is a spurious made up claim. Finally, no mention of the woman in all your thoughts? Her rights don’t enter into your views on abortion? Why is that?
@@gopher7691 , to be clear, I’m not saying there can exist no restrictions on abortion. The restrictions just have to make sense. Find me someone somewhere that believes that a pregnancy with a viable fetus can be terminated right before birth. Where do you get such nonsensical ideas from? And, there is no logical difference between a human 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after birth. How is that the least bit important to this discussion? And, if you are not claiming that an unborn pre-viable embryo/fetus is a person in the Constitutional sense, please clarify what you mean and what constitutional differences in your opinion apply to the unborn. As for protecting bald eagles, you understand they have at times been threatened with extinction, right? I don’t think humans have in their history ever been threatened with extinction, although we are moving in that direction. If you are going to offer a metaphorical example, make sure it is logically relevant.
@@WUWHere is that your modest proposal? Throw a dismembered fetus into a skillet and make breakfast with it?
Waa, waa, waa. Ms Seigel, it was Obama that said elections have consequences.
Merrick Garland has shown he tilts the scales of justice along party lines.
The world that all of us live in it is one that involves raped against women, incest, and often raped at home by robbery situtations. Row v. Wade involves families rights to decide their number in family members. The 14 th Amendment that involves Liberty. Women have rights that society must take under consideration. In particular, please think of the amount of women that live in poverty, almost 80% of females live and die in poverty. Men don't take good care of them after marriage. I think that women divide themselves in many people to care for their families, children, husband and career. Yet we end our life in poverty and society doesn't even pay them the same amount of money for the same position as of a men.
Men control most of society activities, our body is our own to care for it and love, to have an abortion is something that should not even be argued by so many people and society in general.
To have control over our bodies and be pay the same for equal job position is not much to ask from society and The Supreme Court. We are not killing human life. It is a fetus that had not even been form yet. Such is the reason biology and medicine call them fetus. A baby from my point of view is the moment in which a doctor cuts the umbilical cord and as baby take the first breath of air in the world becomes a baby and is human life. Babies don't have a brain fully developed until four years of age.
Let the decision stand is not reason to attack women for their right or wrong decision. There is not an argument that angers me more than reverse Roe v. Wade and go back to the dark age, where females had to travel to have a Doctor providing an illegal abortion. So many Doctors have risk their lives for performing ilegal abortions. Many of them have killed women while performing illegal abortions. We cannot go back to such a misery, when we go back into the past nothing good or productive can become.
And are you advocating the murder of children up to four years old?? And for the record, your brain isn’t actually fully developed until the age of 25! What say you??
Thank you so much ladies. I live in California and love to study the law is important but also I had study biology to know exactly what a fetus is and how is formed, I love to be inform. Seems I read textbooks, no fun reading at all.
Lol is it really that difficult for you to “decipher” what a fetus is?😂
I love how supporters of overturning Roe claim this decision should be "up to the people" while simultaneously supporting partisan gerrymandering that means that not everyone has an equal say in the process. This is the type of cherry picking to support bad faith that I have come to expect in American politics. If unenumerated rights are unconstitutional then we should expect Citizens United to receive the same treatment. These are originalists on the court, are they not? Would they possibly be lying to support their narrow view of the constitution when it suits their political goals? Certainly not, right? Where does the constitution say that money is speech? Where does it say that corporations are people despite corporations being effectively immortal on one hand and on the other hand able to destroyed at the stroke of a pen? If corporations are people, by the reasoning of Dobbs, then it should be illegal to eliminate one for any reason, yet it's common to shift legal liabilities from one corporation to another, then file for bankruptcy for the new entity that has subsumed all the legal liability as a means to avoid civil litigation for a product from the original company that has harmed actual living people. Lets face it, you can legally argue any side of a case which is why slavery was legal for so long in this country and others. Do we want to continue going down this path? I'd argue opponents of Roe are extremely shortsighted, they do not foresee this precedent will be used against them but were voting in this country to be overhauled to actually allow the majority to voice their opinion, opponents of Roe will face a lot of things they might have never seen coming.
Both sides gerrymander and no one party supports it. Ask any person if they think gerrymandering should be done and they will answer no. Politicans trying to rig the system isnt anything new. You are being disingenuous if you think it's only one side.
Gerrymandering affects all law not just abortion law. Does that mean SCOTUS should be making all laws and state legislatures should be eliminated?
@@TheCrimson7272 It's overwhelmingly Republicans that will do this, numerous Democratic states shot themselves in the foot by appointing non-partisan redistricting so please tell me how it's equal on both sides.
Blah blah blah. You can’t murder babies and states are supposed to have more power than the feds. Cry about it.
Every time pro-life choose to mention Germany and Italy as an example of anti abortion bans, they forget to mention that they have approaches that fits for them.They have free health care, free education as well as fully paid maternity leave, which in the United States we have none of those.
Loved how well put this was. The political edge did precede the legal edge on some counts however it was an excellent and well moderated case!
Wonder what would happen to the abortion industry if the law was that the genetic parents of every infant be identified and are jointly responsible for that child until it reaches the age of self determination.
Talk about men paying closer attention to their part in the begating.
And women too.
He talked nothing of the constitution and abortion. Very disappointing
Frustrating discussion. Near the end they started to approach the fundamental question of whether a life with all the rights vested in personhood begins at conception and whether that entity in the uterus has rights that arguably supersede those of the pregnant person. Any understanding of this issue, and any decision about the legality or constitutionality of abortion, must acknowledge several facts that are rarely part of discussions by people with opposing views:
1. Fundamentally and universally, men and women should have equal rights which include the right to bodily autonomy.
2. Only a person with a uterus can become pregnant and birth a child. This biologic inequality and burden affects only women or people with a uterus and therefore, in terms of human reproduction, men and women are inherently unequal. This aspect of the biologic inequality of the sexes has no other corollary in the law and requires that there be a distinct area of law that addresses and protects the reproductive rights of women and their bodily autonomy.
3. A human life begins, genetically and scientifically, at conception. A zygote or a fetus is not a functional human (scientifically speaking) or a person (legally speaking) pre-viability outside a uterus. Therefore, it cannot be argued in any convincing way that the pre-viable entity inside a uterus has full rights that supersede those of the pregnant woman.
4. At minimum, government or community should not be allowed to coerce women to end a pregnancy, nor should a women be coerced to carry a pre-viable pregnancy to term.
Human reproduction and pregnancy are unique situations that are fundamental to women and must be considered differently (i.e. specific and exclusive to women) under the law. And because they affect women universally, the rights afforded women to control their reproductive destiny must be universal and not left to the whim of voters or individual states. Someone needs to explain to Glendon that Universal human rights are superior to religion-based rights.
What is a “functional human”? A fetus is functioning. It is growing and developing the whole time it is in the womb. Unless of course it is torn into pieces by an abortionist. Then it is a corpse. Your addled word salad is just the usual attempt by a pro choicer to cover up the reality of the barbarity of abortion
No one has a right to kill a human being just because it is inconvenient. The communists and the Nazis thought so last century and turned Europe into a charnel house. You pro choicers don’t know how dangerous your thinking is. If you can kill a helpless innocent unborn human being in the womb no one is safe. Killing for convenience is barbarous and should not be tolerated in a civilized society
@@gopher7691, I did provide a definition of sorts, if you would bother to read carefully. By functional I mean a fetus that is viable outside the womb. Like I mentioned in my first reply, I have two children. They were functioning humans when they were born. The 16 week old fetus my then girlfriend (later my wife and mother of my two kids) was not a functional or viable human being when it was aborted. People like you wish to reduce the thorny questions of life to pat absolutist decisions that ignore the messiness of the real world. Beyond pre-viable fetuses, what other issues of an existential nature evokes such passion for you? War? Climate change? Poverty and food insecurity? Nuclear weapons? Domestic terrorism? Tell me.
@@WUWHere killing innocent human beings is pretty high on my list of things to resist. I’m sorry you support it
Why didn’t you say viable then? Functional doesn’t distinguish a fetus from a born human being. They are both functioning. Typical pro choice abuse of language
@@WUWHere it certainly wasn’t functional after you killed it
Where does a woman’s right to choose end and the unborn child’s rights to life start? In my opinion, that’s the question that must be decided. It’s a sliding scale that as each day and month passes moves from the mother towards the unborn child. I don’t believe that just because the female is the one carrying the baby that it gives her absolute rights over the life of the unborn child from conception to birth. In my opinion, after looking at medical information, that after the first trimester the child has its own right to life. Now, this could and should be debated, but somewhere in the time between conception and before birth the child’s right to life takes precedence over the woman’s right to choose. The physical health of the mother and possibly rape or incest are exceptions that should be debated.
@Ndeye Delgado Who looks after the rights of the unborn. After 3 months they have their own right to life which takes precedence over the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy. A woman's first choice is to not have unprotected sex unless she wants a child.
@Ndeye Delgado can't that same argument be used to oppose any gun regulation period? At least guns have the 2nd ammendment expressly protecting them too
@Ndeye Delgado The fetus as you call them, at a certain stage has rights to. The only debate is where that right starts.
A woman's first CHOICE is to not have unprotected sex until you are ready to have a child. I have not heard one pro-choice person mentioning that. It is just let us use abortion as birth control.
@Ndeye Delgado Fair, I reread your comments. First, Having unprotected sex still falls on the woman because she is the one left with the baby. That's reality. Second, don't get silly saying life begins with ejaculation. My position is after the first trimester the child has its own right to life.Third, the VAST majority use abortion as contraception. And that is not just a promiscuous persons. Think back on your own sexual history. How often did you have unprotected sex just because in the moment that thought went out the window? There are a lot of those. Now for those who did everything right. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand. You had the green light but got killed by a drunken driver. running a red light. We are talking about human life which in my world takes presence over inconvenience or even genuine unfortunate circumstances.
Debated by who? I would prefer my elected representatives to make abortion law, not judges
Thank you very much, reproductive rights are voting rights.
Aborted human beings don’t get to vote
The majority of Americans believe abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances at an early stage of pregnancy.For 50 years feminists have been screaming that this decision is between a woman and her doctor.That is wrong because it translates into abortion on demand.Roe has to go and it will!
The state has no right to coerce women into pregnancies.
And a woman has no right to end a human life.
The 10th amendment says questions like that are for the states and the people.
The amendment process is clear. The supreme court has no part in it.
I remember the way it was before Roe vs Wade decision.
Perfect? No. Better for we the people? Absolutely.
Precedent setting decisions are inherently violations of precedent.
@@ferengiprofiteer9145 A woman's body's her private property, she does as she pleases, I don't need a lecture on religion, I'm an atheist.
@@randomdude7384
Your body is your body. You're free to do as you please with it. Right up until you hurt or kill someone else. Then a civil society will give you what you deserve.
@@ferengiprofiteer9145 Try executing the threat?
The women are already pregnant (and in 99% of cases, by their own willing actions) so the state didnt coerce them into it.
However, the state has the right to protect its citizens, and an unborn baby at 6 months to term has been considered by 75%+ of states to be a person worth protecting.
So why does it start at 6 months? Why not 3 months? Why not conception? These questions have different interpretations that can vary widely by demographic.
That is why roe was overturned, among other sound legal reasons.
Reva - how about some constitutional analysis instead of your hyperventilating? You’re a lawyer. Do your job
at least two people valued life
Reba is addled
I have worked for Mass General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital before, two principle teaching hospitals for Harvard Medical School. I graduated from Boston Latin School, for whose first graduating class Harvard was founded one year later in 1636. I trained as a pharmacist.
The “pro-choice” slogan is a pseudoscientific slogan. Every unborn child received 23 chromosomes from his father’s sperm, and 23 chromosomes from his mother’s ovum. He is a genetically different individual from either one of his parents. His life is not for his mother to decide because he is not genetically and biologically the woman’s body. He grows in the placenta and thus is life. Half of unborn babies are male, further proving unborn babies aren’t part of the women’s bodies. Abortion is homicide and unlawful taking of someone else’s body in every sense. There is a medical field out there called OB/GYN taking care of pregnant women and unborn children. The reason they don’t use “pro-abortion” is that it sounds cruel and wicked. To make people swallow this murderous scheme, they come up with a euphemistic sounding term “pro”, a positive word, and “choice”, another positive word. The only “choice” she has is her own body, so she can abort herself. But she is aborting someone else’s body, and that is murder. No one should be given the “right” to murder. And it’s not a privacy issue either. Imagine someone killing another person in his house while claiming “privacy right” because that’s his house. It’s murder, so no one should be given the “right” to murder, and murder shouldn’t be legalized as a “right”. Rights are usually taken away from criminals and murderers. Just check the correction systems in the US.
@@AWMusicChannel Yoi are comparing apples to oranges. Human are different from animals. Nowadays, animals have more rights than unborn babies. So let’s stay at the topic of abortion of a human baby. You give the scenario of you committing suicide while you are pregnant. I don’t know how you fail to die but end up killing your own baby. But if you are in a Republican state with conservative values, you can be held accountable. Suicide means killing oneself. As pro-choice people keep promoting “my body my choice”, but I see none of them getting killed. They are killing others while claiming those are their bodies, which is a lie. An embryo needs the same things that keep us alive, shelter and food. If you are blasted outside of space with no oxygen, no food, no water and no shelter being in the extreme cold, you can’t survive on your own either. Does that mean you too are not alive and thus can also be aborted? And yes, I am still waiting for the lying “pro-choice” “my body my choice” people to abort themselves. Their bodies their choice, so when are you going to abort yourself?
@@AWMusicChannel Btw, abortion people have a lot of nice excuses. Millions of babies are aborted every single year not because of a depressed patient pregnant, or because of rape or incest, but because of people who can’t put their clothes on and can’t keep their legs closed. They are irresponsible with their birth control and let the children be killed indiscreetly. If you are depressed while pregnant and are suicidal, you should be confined in a psychiatric ward to prevent you from committing suicide. If you don’t end up dying from your supposed “suicide” while your child is killed in the process, that is homicide in every sense of the word, regardless of what those “pro-choice” pseudoscientific liars say.
@@AWMusicChannel 1. You're using an exceptional case to try to justify the ordinary case. Don't worry, the states will grapple with these sorts of issues. I doubt you'd be charged with committing abortion if that was a secondary effect. 2. I don't know if you should go to prison, but suicide should be made illegal again.
Seigel: Abortions lower infant mortality rates in Mississippi.
Me: At some point, abortion is infant mortality.
Mississippi: That point is 15 weeks.
Seigel: Noooooo!🤯
Go read some religious literature
Harvard law School is committed to rigorous discussion and generous listening of substanitive issues as long as they are confined to law books. Let them become real, and the faculty's check book will restrain it's sense of debate. Even if its the harassment and or rape of a student. But, to be fair, they are debaters of the law. They are not trained to DEFEND our values against tyranny and open crimes against the body.
being inside something is not the same as being part of something the autonomy demands that a Siamese has the right to commit suicide .. but shooting himself in the other head
Fetal pain responses begin at week 8. Pain-sensitive transmitters are complete by week 14. By this time the cerebral cortex is 30-40% complete enough for pain transmitters
and receptors to function in one go quite efficiently.
William Liley, Mortimer Rosen confirmed that the response to pain is at least proportional to that amount.
As you have seen, the assumption that pain cannot occur
until the nervous system is complete is obviously wrong.
Three women disregarding the viewpoints of men.
What else is new?
Nobody cares about your prehistoric takes
@Ndeye Delgado Other people's business is none of his business
The supreme court ignoring Stare Decisis, and the constitution, and states, and the people is my business.
A woman's uterus is none of the supreme court's nor the federal government's business either.
How'd the life of that baby become solely the business of the people with uteruses?
Don't get me wrong, my daughter should have had an abortion the moment they found she had a tubal pregnancy. By the time the fetus was as big as a peanut, it came within an eyelash in of killing her. Several miracles had to happen to save her.
Odd that grey lady acts as though this is political. Roe v Wade decision denied government of, for, and by the people. (Half of which are tasked with protecting the half with uteruses)
So yeah, that baby is the business of us all.
Not the first comment
C'mon Ms Seigel, you won't like anything less than abortions as birth control.
Quit grasping at straws.
I think your comment is an example of a Straw Man Argument. Well done!
If you dont want an abortion dont have one, if i need an abortion to save my life, i will have one, you are not in my life so your opinion does not mean nothing to me, i dont care what politicians say, or what you say, my life, my choice, god gave me free will to do what i want to with my own body. So i do not care what anyone else thinks or says. Have a nice day