Roe v. Wade

Post Reply New Topic

Point of clarification: Japan resolved to keep fighting after Hiroshima. If they were willing to have an entire city wiped out and keep fighting, it's unlikely that a demonstration on a deserted island would have made them surrender. Nagasaki was indeed necessary. Japan was even ready to keep fighting after Nagasaki, and only caved because they were under the (mistaken) impression that we were about to vaporize a third city. The Japanese had formed a cult around their Emperor, and women and children were preparing to fight to the death against an invasion of mainland Japan. These were very determined enemies, and it took a lot to get them to back down. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really were necessary to end the war, as horrific and ugly as they were.

Also worth noting is that these were not purely civilian targets, as some like to claim. They were industrial centers which produced supplies for the war effort. Also, we did warn Japan in the Potsdam Declaration that if they did not surrender they would be destroyed. Can't really fault the military for not being too specific about how they would destroy Japan, especially given that they started the war with a sneak attack.

Here, I am inclined to agree with Orwell, off topic though it may be. And yes, sometimes the end does justify the means, less so with regard to issues of law IMO.

I could have sworn reading somewhere that the Japanese were trying to surrender after the Hiroshima bombing and that either the message didn't get there in a timely manner or FDR simply ignored it and dropped Fatboy for the fun of it.

Yoo Hoo! FDR died in April of 1945. The plutonium bomb was not even tested until July of 1945 (Trinity, in New Mexico).

The Battle of Okinawa revealed that the Japanese were totally fanatic. President Truman was determined to use all means necessary to make an invasion unnecessary. He even authorized the use of gas and chemicals.

ruveyn

FDR was already dead by then, as Ruveyn mentioned. Massacring tens of thousands of civilians is not a decision that is made lightly or just "for the fun of it," even by someone like Truman. Everything I've read on the topic indicates that Japan fully intended to fight on after Hiroshima.

I would guess what your thinking of was in fact very close to what happened with regard to the attack on Pearl Harbor. A message had been sent to D.C. about the Japanese fleet.

I do have to believe that Roe v. Wade was somewhat questionable. I mean, yes, if the courts ruled that a mother could abort without question if her death was probable if she tried to carry the baby to term, then we would likely have avoided all controversy and this would have kept in better line with their constitutional desires. As it stands though, this decision has made an ugly mess.

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, written by Paul Nitze, concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, Nitze reported:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.[64][65]

This conclusion assumed that a conventional fire-bombing attack would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population.[66] One of Nitze's most influential sources was Prince Fumimaro Konoe, who responded to a question asking whether Japan would have surrendered if the atomic bombs had not been dropped by saying that resistance would have continued through November or December, 1945.[67]

Historians, such as Bernstein, Hasegawa, and Newman, have criticized Nitze for drawing a conclusion that, they say, went far beyond what the available evidence warranted, in order to promote the reputation of the Air Force at the expense of the Army and Navy.[68][69][70]

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[71][72]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[73][74] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[72] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[75]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[65]

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion , and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[76]

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on 15 August 1945,[77] though the War Council did not know the extent of the losses to the Soviets in China at that time.

VJ day was Aug. 14, 1945. It could reasonably be argued that taking into account the casualty rate in WWII Nagasaki and Hiroshima, did in fact save lives. More importantly, it saved U.S. lives. Killing people, vile though it may be, is what war is about.

Interesting perspective. The end justifies the means in war, where we slaughter hundreds of thousands or sometimes even millions, but it is harder to justify skipping around some procedural regulations in changing our laws. I think I must have misinterpreted you, could you clarify?

Now, you mentioned being pro-choice but being opposed to Roe v Wade. I have similar misgivings in some scenarios: my Aspie adherence to rules and proper procedure have instilled a great respect for doing everything through the proper channels, and yet there have been periods in our history when what was right and what was within the confines of law were not the same- most notably Brown v Board and other civil rights cases where the Court overstepped its bounds but in doing so furthered justice. When the law and what is right are different, which one should triumph, and how do you reconcile the two?

Should you and I engage in a debate, certain rules of decorum are appropriate. If the argument progressed to blows, I'd suggest a different set of rules might be in order. In this case, I would find it preferable that he who threw the first punch might be the one to lose. Very possibly by whatever means necessary.

In Brown, the Court ruled that although "separate but equal" might be peachy in theory, in practice separate is never equal. The evidence at the time supported their findings, thus IMO they did not overstep their bounds. If the law is wrong then it should be changed, through appropriate means.

For background see 14th ammendment.

Entirely right about Truman instead of FDR. Wrong as wrong can be wrong on that. But the point of Hiroshima then Nagasaki still is in question.

Let us say that you attach a chain to me (with my permission), and padlock it on. Let us say you own these items. Then I wish to remove them. It turns out I cannot do so without ruining your property. It’s quite lawful for me to remove these items. It’s my body and my rights to my person outweigh your rights to mere property.

Let us say that you arrange to implant some item of property inside me. You want it back (for whatever reason), but the only way to remove it requires I undergo a medical procedure. I am not legally obliged to go through with such a medical procedure. The right to my person (in the form of the right to reject medical interventions) outweighs your rights to mere property.

It is rare outside a debate that only concerns the bodies of females, to encounter arguments that implicitly imply someone’s properties rights ought to require people to not remove things from their bodies, or to undergo unwanted medical procedures, yet your suggestions that property rights should prevent or require the removal of something from a woman’s body to convenience alleged property rights of males does exactly that.


Pregnancy and childbirth is inherently dangerous. Risks to the health and life of the mother are real and present. Pregnancy itself constitutes a risk to health and potentially fatal complications are not uncommon.


No, he does not. He has the right to take steps that would avoid the situation entirely.

He has no right to force anyone to undergo a medical procedure, and he has no right to skip out on his obligations to his offspring. That a women does not choose to undergo a medical procedure does not negate any obligation a person has to their offspring. Your suggestion would either require that some people have a legal right to force others to undergo unwanted (and risky) medical procedures, or that children, through no fault of their own, be alienated from their rights.

You might think it is the job of the law to make sure if people get themselves into an unfortunate or undesirable circumstance, that males are never left worse off than women and children, but that is not the purpose of the law at all. It is not the job of the law to ensure anyone involved in undesirable circumstances is equally inconvenienced either.

The law’s task is to uphold society’s wider values, avoiding the impartiality that arises in detail consideration. No one else has any general rights in other circumstances to require people to undergo medical procedures or not undergo medical procedures for the sake of an alleged property right, because it’s not consistent with society’s wider values. The law’s task is to uphold those wider values without being partial because some people perceive that as a result of biological facts beyond the influence of the law, impartially upholding society’s wider values in these specific circumstances, risks men involved in such circumstances being worse off than women and children involved in the same.

The law cannot change biological facts. It’s task is not to ensure that biological facts are responded to so that if between women, men and children, someone is going to be more inconvenienced, that it not be men. It’s task is to apply society’s wider values, and society’s wider values are that the right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over property rights, and the rights of children to be supported by their parents takes precedence over squabbles or disagreements between the same.

Any man can avoid any inconvenience the combined effects of biological facts and society’s wider values might cause in such circumstances, by keeping it in his pants.


It is not a right of women to have their children supported. It is a right of children to be supported.

You are suggesting that people loose very basic rights because of the conduct of some third party. Children are not property or an extension of either of their parents. Once born, a human child is a legal, rights bearing person, and there is no legal logic in depriving them of important rights because of acts or omissions of some third party, occurring before the child was even born.

It is very rare for men to have no choice about whether or not to risk fathering a child. Drunks cannot be sure they will crash a car if they drive, but this does not suggest they have no control over whether they cause a car crash by driving while drunk. Men might not control whether or not a woman conceives when they have sex with her, but that is not the same as suggesting they have no choice in the matter at all. Just like women, they legally have a choice over what they do with their bodies.

No actual rights of men are violated in this issue, but all the suggestions you have come up with to protect men from the consequences of their actions, requires that someone else’s rights be violated. The logic seems to be that if someone is going to be left worse off, it’s unacceptable for this to be men, such that it is better to strip either women or children of their rights, than allow any circumstance to result in men being the least advantaged or most disadvantaged party in respect of women and children, if it is quite impossible for the law to ensure equality of outcome for all parties.

Last edited by pandd on 03 Sep 2009, 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

one could remember or take information from those who witnessed the absolutely savage behavior of culture in the States at that time to the 'unwed' mother and by extension, to her child during the era proceeding Roe v Wade. There is a reason that the term 'bastard' was so derogatory, there is a reason "The Scarlet Letter" was so scandalous. Culturally it was ruin and degradation for the girl or woman. Abortion - because this was before the birth control pill became available globally- were wretched back alley affairs and the proverbial coat hanger was not a myth, something to which I can personally attest, (but did not happen to me, personally.) because competent medical providers were forbidden on pain of losing their licence and worse. The fact that it was a public health issue needs to be put in context of Roe v. Wade.

Women and girls were hounded and driven away from their forever stigmatized families, the children were lost to adoption or orphanages, women and girls died in agony from the problematic procedures. Organized ( and not so organized) crime made money and was protected by those they extorted and maimed or died because of the cultural stigma. Please remember that 'shotgun weddings' were actual tragic occurrences, not just punchlines for crude jokes.

So I can see Roe v Wade in the context of Brown v Topeka Board of Edu. We so often take laws out of the context of the times in which they were written, when often it is the very foundation of the reason the law was written.

How many men have been driven to suicide by the Nazi tactics some states use to impose child support?

RE: Child Support

Most people don't know that the foundation behind all child support law, policy and enforcement is to find someone to saddle with the job of paying for the kid. If a man is lied to and told it is his child and he can PROVE that he is not the father at a later date, he is still obligated for supporting the kid until it turns 18. The state and the courts care nothing about justice....only about not having to subsidize raising the kid.

The simple fact is that a woman's choice ENDS when she gives herself to another. If she becomes pregnant, what is inside of her is the joint property of both her and the father. If she doesn't like that deal, she should keep her legs closed, get her tubes tied, or do any number of things that will ensure she cannot get pregnant.

In society, a woman can CHOOSE to become pregnant, lie to a man that she is sterile or using "protection" or even do deceitful tactics to obtain a man's sperm to impregnate herself and when it comes to issues of law, the man has NO RIGHTS whatsoever in the matter no matter what evidence is presented to show the facts. It is an utterly biased and one-sided system.

Last edited by zer0netgain on 03 Sep 2009, 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is no question that the child needs funds for support. The alternative to forcing the father to pay is for the state to pay. You don't seem particularly enthusiastic for charging the general public for undertaking this general burden so where should the burden be put?