Wasn’t it generally believed that the group opinion by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was actually written by Justice Kennedy — not O’Connor?

While of course she signed off on it, the heavily libertarian bent of the opinion reeks of Kennedy.

The link gives a view of predominant (Orthodox) Jewish views on abortion. As might be expected, the rabbis will tell you that often you are not permitted to get an abortion, but allow more leeway than fundamentalist pro-lifers — with differences of opinion mainly regarding “physical/ mental health of the mother” and “birth defect” issues.

More importantly, I think, none of the sources state that they support a law to be passed that mandate one view of the appropriate level of permitted abortion of another. The Jewish views differ on when a person — as a good Jew — can have an abortion.

I don’t think anyone would have a problem with a Rabbi saying, “Getting an abortion is your situation violates Jewish law,” as long as they are not advocating that abortion be banned under secular law in that situation.

You don’t ask the rabbi unless you happen to care what he thinks.

The medical textbooks of thirty-five years ago used a literal translation of the Oath of Hippocrates, which required that a physician swear not to perform abortion, and not to perform sterilization unless necessary to save a woman’s physical health or life. The American Medical Association approved a revised oath to reflect the legal status of sterilization and abortion. Hippocrates didn’t write the update.

Science once taught that the earth was the center of the universe and the planets spun around it. One reason was that the political powers of the day wished to regard themselves as ruling the center of the universe. Science changed its mind. The scientific world is as susceptible to half-truths as any other field of endeavor. Truth, though, will out.

Especially when they try to prove our moral inadequacy by claiming an equivalency between human beings and something that can get flushed down the toilet without anyone ever knowing it existed.

These same mindsets are what allow women to stand at a rally and tell other women that they should not have control over their own reproductive system simply because it is inhabited by a parasite that likely will one day be a person if left alone to continue sucking at her bloodstream.

I am with UnapologeticAtheist on this one. Roe has since sided with the pro-life caucus. I guess it was okay for her to choose what to do with her body, but now she can tell other women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. How convenient.

And while we keep thinking like tribal warriors, cranking out babies as the world population passes ANOTHER billion, we’ll maybe even have time to be surprised when our “women are baby factories”? arguments turn up in the long run to be astronomically destructive to our culture and way of life.

With all the judgment placed on China for its “one child ” law, it has seen quality of life increase within its borders after instituting the policy. New policies are decreasing the numbers of abortions as well. Also regard the third world and its propensity to increase its population. The strain of the high numbers of people is causing environmental destruction, reducing the number of people the land can support. Sure, those babies are alive, but they live short, disease-ridden lives.
It is a common notion among environmental scientists that women’s rights, population numbers, and economic wealth are linked. However, the precise causational factors are not quite clear. Women who have more rights can become educated and have a say in how many children they carry. Fewer children mean less strain on the parents’ income, and they can rise out of poverty faster. Decreased numbers of impoverished citizens allow governments to build economic wealth and spend time fighting crime and environmental destruction. If only the Third World saw women’s rights as an ecomomic issue…

Thank you, AndiF. My point was that pro-lifers often bring morality into the discussion of abortion unnecessarily. They talk of moral superiority and sheer disdain for those with pro-choice views. When they do that, they open the door for others to question their moral integrity.

Yup, my take on your morality and how it plays out IRL has no more validity than yours on mine. Doesn’t seem to stop anybody from passing judgment, though.

And while we keep thinking like tribal warriors, cranking out babies as the world population passes ANOTHER billion, we’ll maybe even have time to be surprised when our “women are baby factories” arguments turn up in the long run to be astronomically destructive to our culture and way of life. But hey, I’m only a man, so what do I know? Oh yes, I know that no woman should ever be forced to incubate my sperm under penalty of law. Ever. Because I would never incubate anyone’s DNA, and I consider women to be my equals with the same rights I’d never accept if they were taken away from myself.

The discrepancies you note are discrepancies between your perception of my beliefs, and your perception of what you believe those beliefs should entail in order to be consistent.

Neither of those perceptions has much, if any validity, when applied internally to my own life. It doesn’t bother me overmuch that your misunderstanding of what I believe clashes with your misunderstanding of how I execute that belief. ;)

Erin, this “what about all the poor unimplanted embryos”? plaint is a fairly tired theme from pro-choicers.

For those who assert their belief of valuing all life and look upon pro-choice people with consternation, there are some lack of themes that I would like to point out in the form of a to-do list.
Foster and adopt children who need homes. Work to end the death penalty. Work to end suffering of humanity in the forms of abuse, starvation, and disease. Work to end human conditions such as poverty and divorce that help cause women to choose abortions in the first place. And finally, become vegans. After all, animal life is still life that God created, isn’t it?
Until you do those things above, do not call yourselves crusaders for life. You can call yourselves embryo crusaders. Life is not just at the beginning but throughout the entire lifespan of one’s existence. Before you pass judgment on our lack of morality, resolve the discrepancies within your own moral spheres.

If you go to a ward filled with terminal cancer patients - people who are inevitably going to die in the next few days or weeks - is it OK to start killing them against their wishes for kicks and grins? No - even though they were going to die anyway, they are still living people with rights. Your intention in your actions is morally relevant regardless of the condition of the people your actions impact.

Similarly, the fact that nature is profligate with fertilized embryos does not release us from moral consideration of those embryos when it comes to our own actions.

Of course, if that makes you feel less necessary, you may continue to believe what you like about conception. But I would advise that, as Amanda mentioned, the number of fertilized eggs that are flushed from the bodies of women is far greater than the number of fetuses that are aborted per year, so perhaps your energies are better served encouraging research that would yield higher levels of implantation. Of course, if you choose not to, you have a third of all fertilized eggs…oh, excuse me, “babies’ lives” that no one in the “culture of life” seems to give much of a damn about, pardon my blunt observation.

Not grounded in science? Says who? Look at any biology or obstetrics textbook: Conception is obviously the point at which the genetic material for a new human life comes together; it’s the point at which that new human life starts the process of cell multiplication, etc. It’s silly to say that this elementary fact of biology somehow “insists that men are the center of existence.”

As for the passage in Exodus which provides for a fine rather than the death penalty if a fetus is killed in a fight between two men: The fetus is likely killed by accident. Often, in such a situation, a man could honestly say that he did not know that the woman was pregnant, or sometimes even that he did not intend to cause her a miscarriage. Just because Torah doesn’t call for the execution of such a man does not mean that it considers a fetus worth a cow. To my knowledge, the Levitical Code did not provide for any imprisonment, which is something that today’s religio-political rulers ought to learn, but quickly.

I have read other interpretations of Exodus 21:22. Some anti-abortionists have claimed that the passage refers to premature birth rather than miscarriage. In their eyes the passage is saying that if, as a result of injury, the mother gives birth prematurely, then a fine must be paid if the baby is born alive but if it is born dead then the penalty will be ‘life for life.’

On the other hand, I have read others who say that the passage refers to induced abortion. It should be translated as: “When people try to harm a woman so that she has a miscarriage”? instead of “When men fight and harm a woman so that she miscarries”?. Then the woman’s husband may demand compensation if he did not agree to the abortion. If the procedure results in the woman’s death the penalty is ‘life for life.’ This interpretation means that we do not have to think that there is a special law for such an unlikely incident as a pregnant woman being accidentally hurt by two fighting men.

I do not know a word of Hebrew. Can you tell me if the original can be translated in either of these two ways. How have Jewish scholars over the centuries understood it?

By the way, I have always thought that the Bible did describe the earth as being flat. Is that not true?

When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be determined by reckoning. 23 But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,

JPS 1985

More generally with regards to the O’Connor situation, take this as comfort.