SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,363
41,812
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
As a heads up, that's an explicitly Catholic journal on medical ethics. It's also a fairly low impact journal. The first author is also a nutritionist and the second is an explicitly Catholic ethicist. The fact that they define personhood that way should neither be surprising nor taken as representative of any broader view in human development.
https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/LQR

There is nothing in the guidelines for authors that states that the authors must be explicitly Catholic. What's more, they are a member of COPE.
 
May 4, 2011
3,694
1,660
1,743
Charleston, SC
Why "explicitly" Catholic ethicist? Why not just Catholic ethicist? And if you read what is actually written they are making a broad point about personhood.
Because they aren't an ethicist who happens to be Catholic, they frame their ethics from a Catholic/Christian perspective. Thus, the ethical framing is explicitly Catholic/Christian. As examples, the person teaches a course titled "Bioethical Issues: Christian Perspectives". The journal is similar. If it were just an ethicist who happened to be Catholic or happened to be at a Catholic university, I'd frame it differently.

I did read chunks of it and didn't think it was actually super different from my own thoughts. Just because I agree with them, that doesn't change the broader context of the writing. I jumped in because I presumed the person saw an NIH/pubmed link and took that to mean something bigger. The actual context is different. That is all.
 
May 4, 2011
3,694
1,660
1,743
Charleston, SC
https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/LQR

There is nothing in the guidelines for authors that states that the authors must be explicitly Catholic. What's more, they are a member of COPE.
I think you're reading too much into what I said. I didn't say the authors had to be Catholic for that journal and I'm not trying to imply that there wasn't appropriate peer review or article selection. I apologize if it came across that way. I do, however, think it's important to consider the outlet when understanding this issue. For a layperson, the pubmed link might well seem to indicate something like JAMA where publishing this would mean something very different.
 

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,363
41,812
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
As examples, the person teaches a course titled "Bioethical Issues: Christian Perspectives".
Which is precisely the course I taught. When I was teaching non-Christian perspectives I presented them fairly. If students do not completely understand the issues then they have no basis with which to disagree. I think if you'll read what was written in the snippet that was cut and pasted, they did the same.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,819
1,070
1,743
nunya
I think you're reading too much into what I said. I didn't say the authors had to be Catholic for that journal and I'm not trying to imply that there wasn't appropriate peer review or article selection. I apologize if it came across that way. I do, however, think it's important to consider the outlet when understanding this issue. For a layperson, the pubmed link might well seem to indicate something like JAMA where publishing this would mean something very different.
I posted that link because, it is published on a .gov site for the NIH and it is professional views published on a NIH website.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,655
18,197
1,743
Did I say that? I am prolife. All I am saying is that the issue from a constitutional standpoint is personhood, and nothing else.
Fair enough.

What I'm saying is that when life begins is well described by science. And a person/human being by definition is after birth. Neither "person" or "human being" is defined as a fetus that I can find.

Is the fetus life? Yes
Is the fetus human? Yes

So the issue to me becomes when does life matter.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,885
10,908
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Stitt goes on Fox and talks about the inability of incest and rape victims to get an abortion in OK if the RVW is passed and New Oklahoma law goes into effect with 6wk abortion.

Stitt responds that We in Oklahoma do not think it is right to abort that baby.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1525831640982990848
 

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,363
41,812
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Fair enough.

What I'm saying is that when life begins is well described by science. And a person/human being by definition is after birth. Neither "person" or "human being" is defined as a fetus that I can find.

Is the fetus life? Yes
Is the fetus human? Yes

So the issue to me becomes when does life matter.
That's nice. But with respect to the law it is irrelevant. Witness:

5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Personhood is what matters. A person under the constitution has due process and equal protection rights.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,655
18,197
1,743
That's nice. But with respect to the law it is irrelevant. Witness:

5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Personhood is what matters. A person under the constitution has due process and equal protection rights.
Which is why it's a state issue.
 
May 4, 2011
3,694
1,660
1,743
Charleston, SC
I posted that link because, it is published on a .gov site for the NIH and it is professional views published on a NIH website.
But that's what I'm trying to explain. It isn't published on a .gov website. That is the equivalent of a search result. The better comparison would be finding something in a Google search.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,446
6,966
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Stitt goes on Fox and talks about the inability of incest and rape victims to get an abortion in OK if the RVW is passed and New Oklahoma law goes into effect with 6wk abortion.

Stitt responds that We in Oklahoma do not think it is right to abort that baby.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1525831640982990848
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm "super" proud to have a Governor that knows a women finding out she's pregnant 6wks after being raped with no options but to carry full term is "super super hard"....
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,569
1,921
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
Stitt has said he would support any pro-life bill, so he needs to be asked what other extreme anti-abortion moves he would support such as further criminalizing it by imprisoning women who get them, ban abortion inducing drugs, ban birth control that can interfere with the fertilized egg, and making it a crime to donate to women's rights organization which support abortion rights. State legislative heads should be asked the same.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,446
6,966
1,743
Piedmont, OK
I absolutely 100% believe there should be an exception for rape. I do wonder why someone who was raped wouldn't get the morning after pill.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not questioning the thought process/decision making abilities of rape victims here?...
 
Last edited:

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,446
6,966
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Cool. There's a fine line between just questioning why we're not able to effectively get victims appropriate care and questioning "why didn't they just-". I didn't really think that's where you were going with it but there's some posters here that I wouldn't put it past.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,062
17,422
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Cool. There's a fine line between just questioning why we're not able to effectively get victims appropriate care and questioning "why didn't they just-". I didn't really think that's where you were going with it but there's some posters here that I wouldn't put it past.
I was more thinking what if this does become the law, no exceptions after 6 weeks. I would want to do everything possible to help women avoid having to deal with that. Not questioning, certainly not forcing, just more hoping that every alternative opportunity is made easily available.