|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 03 2021 01:18 JimmiC wrote:
The thing that I dont understand is why does it not fet talked about more that outlawing abortion does not make it go away, it just makes it far less safe.
And, at the very least, the people who want to see fewer abortions should be overwhelmingly in favor of things that actually help prevent pregnancy and the need for abortions, like proper sex education and contraception.
|
|
|
|
|
United States43609 Posts
On December 03 2021 01:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 00:34 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. Pretty sure there's a thing about government not being able to make everyone go along with their religious beliefs. Well if Roe were to be overturned, that act would not be one that makes everyone go along with Christian beliefs. It would simply be an act that acknowledges that the constitution does not encompass abortion. It's about the law, not religion.
The overturning of Roe vs Wade would amount to a ruling that the state can requisition women’s bodies for religious purposes. The personhood of a fetus is a religious assertion, not a scientific one.
|
On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though.
Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law.
|
Well if it's just about state's rights, like the last time ...
The question of overturning roe was asked to every single trump appointee i believe, wasnt acb asked point blank about it ?
|
Northern Ireland26279 Posts
On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law.
Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions
A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality.
The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties.
The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue.
Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue.
The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them.
As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone.
This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree.
There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers.
|
On December 03 2021 01:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 00:34 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. Pretty sure there's a thing about government not being able to make everyone go along with their religious beliefs. Well if Roe were to be overturned, that act would not be one that makes everyone go along with Christian beliefs. It would simply be an act that acknowledges that the constitution does not encompass abortion. It's about the law, not religion.
Yes it does, because those "Christian beliefs" will be codified into law and thousands of women will be denied access to abortion, regardless of their own religious belief. This sophistry that it's about law and state's rights and not about religion (and politics) is total bullshit.
|
|
|
United States43609 Posts
The 2nd amendment isn’t really a thing in a country where possession of a legal firearm is considered justification for summary execution by an agent of the state. The conservative contradiction between their police worship and their second amendment worship can only be reconciled with racism. But there is no real right to bear arms in America. There is often permission to bear arms but it is by no means absolute.
|
|
|
On December 03 2021 02:20 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law. Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality. The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties. The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue. Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue. The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them. As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone. This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree. There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers.
His argument is not that the Constiutiton is easy to change, but that anything left unmentioned by the Constitution is left open to change by the people (i.e. democracy in each of the several states), which is certainly very possible and likely.
|
On December 03 2021 02:20 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law. Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality. The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties. The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue. Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue. The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them. As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone. This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree. There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers.
Why does the Supreme Court need to weigh in in the situation where legislation or constitutional amendment is not feasible? Aren't you saying that the Supreme Court should enact your preferred policy, even though half the country doesn't want that policy?
In any case, my view is that it is outside the Supreme court's power to weigh in. Roe v Wade (and many other cases like Miranda) exceeded the Article III power. The law is the law.
|
United States43609 Posts
On December 03 2021 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 02:20 WombaT wrote:On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law. Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality. The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties. The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue. Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue. The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them. As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone. This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree. There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers. Why does the Supreme Court need to weigh in in the situation where legislation or constitutional amendment is not feasible? Aren't you saying that the Supreme Court should enact your preferred policy, even though half the country doesn't want that policy? In any case, my view is that it is outside the Supreme court's power to weigh in. Roe v Wade (and many other cases like Miranda) exceeded the Article III power. The law is the law.
The right to bodily autonomy is the kind of right that the constitution and the Supreme Court exist to protect. If a state legislature attempt to hijack my body for religious reasons I would absolutely expect the Supreme Court to strike that down.
You can’t force me to give you the use of my literal organs based on what is a religious assertion. A fetus can’t oxygenate blood, it can’t filter and excrete toxins, it has a fundamentally parasitic existence. The argument about the value of a fetus is philosophical and religious, not scientific. I am sympathetic to the argument but it is religious and therefore not an assertion that the state should be legislating compliance to.
|
On December 03 2021 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 02:20 WombaT wrote:On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law. Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality. The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties. The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue. Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue. The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them. As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone. This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree. There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers. Why does the Supreme Court need to weigh in in the situation where legislation or constitutional amendment is not feasible? Aren't you saying that the Supreme Court should enact your preferred policy, even though half the country doesn't want that policy? In any case, my view is that it is outside the Supreme court's power to weigh in. Roe v Wade (and many other cases like Miranda) exceeded the Article III power. The law is the law. Except that the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment protects a women's right to an abortion.
So the SC did not implement policy but interpreted the constitution, which is their job.
|
On December 03 2021 04:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 02:20 WombaT wrote:On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law. Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality. The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties. The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue. Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue. The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them. As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone. This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree. There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers. Why does the Supreme Court need to weigh in in the situation where legislation or constitutional amendment is not feasible? Aren't you saying that the Supreme Court should enact your preferred policy, even though half the country doesn't want that policy? In any case, my view is that it is outside the Supreme court's power to weigh in. Roe v Wade (and many other cases like Miranda) exceeded the Article III power. The law is the law. The right to bodily autonomy is the kind of right that the constitution and the Supreme Court exist to protect. If a state legislature attempt to hijack my body for religious reasons I would absolutely expect the Supreme Court to strike that down. You can’t force me to give you the use of my literal organs based on what is a religious assertion. A fetus can’t oxygenate blood, it can’t filter and excrete toxins, it has a fundamentally parasitic existence. The argument about the value of a fetus is philosophical and religious, not scientific. I am sympathetic to the argument but it is religious and therefore not an assertion that the state should be legislating compliance to.
I guess I could entertain an argument that the ninth amendment protects a right to bodily autonomy. That's interesting. I just think it should all be tethered to actual constitutional text. The Supreme Court went off the rails with the due process clause a long time ago (to Gorsameth's point) but maybe the 9A is viable.
Did a tiny bit of research just now and it appears that in the British colonies, abortion was legal prior to quickening. Which may support the view the abortion was a recognized right, at least prior to quickening, and therefore was protected by the 9A. I imagine a legal scholar has written on this at some point.
I am not a religious person so I'm not diametrically opposed to abortion or anything. I'm just an originalist.
|
On December 03 2021 04:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 02:20 WombaT wrote:On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law. Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality. The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties. The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue. Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue. The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them. As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone. This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree. There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers. Why does the Supreme Court need to weigh in in the situation where legislation or constitutional amendment is not feasible? Aren't you saying that the Supreme Court should enact your preferred policy, even though half the country doesn't want that policy? In any case, my view is that it is outside the Supreme court's power to weigh in. Roe v Wade (and many other cases like Miranda) exceeded the Article III power. The law is the law. The right to bodily autonomy is the kind of right that the constitution and the Supreme Court exist to protect. If a state legislature attempt to hijack my body for religious reasons I would absolutely expect the Supreme Court to strike that down. You can’t force me to give you the use of my literal organs based on what is a religious assertion. A fetus can’t oxygenate blood, it can’t filter and excrete toxins, it has a fundamentally parasitic existence. The argument about the value of a fetus is philosophical and religious, not scientific. I am sympathetic to the argument but it is religious and therefore not an assertion that the state should be legislating compliance to.
I generally agree but I assume you are talking fetuses up to a certain gestational age? A 38 week fetus is certainly capable of doing all those things outside the womb
|
United States43609 Posts
On December 03 2021 08:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 04:11 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2021 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 02:20 WombaT wrote:On December 03 2021 01:48 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. The idea that humans ought to have no rights/freedoms other than the ones explicitly laid out in the Constitution is pretty ridiculous though. Well, the brilliance of the founders' system is that it is adaptable to the times. But it prescribes methods for the adaptation: legislation or constitutional amendment. And if enough people oppose your idea so that you can't get the legislation or amendment passed, then the system is working as intended. The will of the people and all. Supreme Court rulings are an illegitimate means of effecting change in issues left unmentioned in the constitution or other federal law. Except it’s not, as has been shown in innumerable occasions A very solid, and in many ways noble framework that doesn’t necessarily dovetail well with many aspects of modern political reality. The legislature in and around the time of conception was compromised of individuals from all over the country representing their states or districts, not a duopoly of formalised political parties. The mechanisms in place make sense until they don’t. I can’t envisage any scenario where in the current year any Constitutional amendment is actually possible. On any issue. Even sidestepping the rather contentious gun issue. The Supreme Court doing their thing isn’t a particularly elegant solution, but given political realities it’s rather left to them. As others have alluded to, abortion opposition is almost exclusively via a religious objection, so I think a plausible objection can be found in separation of church(es) and State alone. This idea that people had it figured out 300 years ago and let’s just leave it is preposterous. They had many great ideas, the world has shifted to a ridiculous degree. There’s also more to the constitution and Supreme Court rulings than the 2nd Amendment and Roe v Wade, but to the folks who want their guns and their women to bear unwanted children that’s about the extent of their devotion to the Founding Fathers. Why does the Supreme Court need to weigh in in the situation where legislation or constitutional amendment is not feasible? Aren't you saying that the Supreme Court should enact your preferred policy, even though half the country doesn't want that policy? In any case, my view is that it is outside the Supreme court's power to weigh in. Roe v Wade (and many other cases like Miranda) exceeded the Article III power. The law is the law. The right to bodily autonomy is the kind of right that the constitution and the Supreme Court exist to protect. If a state legislature attempt to hijack my body for religious reasons I would absolutely expect the Supreme Court to strike that down. You can’t force me to give you the use of my literal organs based on what is a religious assertion. A fetus can’t oxygenate blood, it can’t filter and excrete toxins, it has a fundamentally parasitic existence. The argument about the value of a fetus is philosophical and religious, not scientific. I am sympathetic to the argument but it is religious and therefore not an assertion that the state should be legislating compliance to. I generally agree but I assume you are talking fetuses up to a certain gestational age? A 38 week fetus is certainly capable of doing all those things outside the womb
When a fetus is capable of a non parasitic existence we would call an abortion a caesarean birth. Nobody is advocating that the newborn baby then be put into a blender for the sake of completeness.
Termination of the pregnancy generally results in the death of the fetus as a side effect rather than primary goal. If the fetus survives then great, that’s a win win. I’m morally okay with a woman deciding at 38 weeks that she’s done having a fetus inside of her and having it removed intact and healthily. That’d be far more moral than keeping it inside her and engaging in risky behaviours such as alcohol use which would be her prerogative.
These are always edge cases though. Late term abortions are tragedies with heartbroken parents who have already bought baby clothes and painted nurseries learning that the fetus is incompatible with life. They’re not really worth discussing because nobody wants a late term abortion, they want early abortions or babies.
|
On December 03 2021 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 01:04 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 03 2021 00:34 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2021 00:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 02 2021 17:03 Starlightsun wrote:
It's curious that the side that is 100% religiously motivated seems so eager to disguise that fact, and keeps hammering on about how states should decide. It reminds me a lot of "it's not actually about slavery but state's rights". There are good faith arguments that the constitution does not grant any right to abortion and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion is simply not part of the constitution's meaning. The system was designed so that issues like abortion would be left to state legislatures. Pretty sure there's a thing about government not being able to make everyone go along with their religious beliefs. Well if Roe were to be overturned, that act would not be one that makes everyone go along with Christian beliefs. It would simply be an act that acknowledges that the constitution does not encompass abortion. It's about the law, not religion. The overturning of Roe vs Wade would amount to a ruling that the state can requisition women’s bodies for religious purposes. The personhood of a fetus is a religious assertion, not a scientific one.
It's a philosophical assertion, the question is neither inherently religious nor scientific. All biological taxonomy is fuzzy science with lines drawn for convenience, cause life isn't like Pokemon.
I can acknowledge that the personhood of a fetus is at the very least a special case. If someone intentionally terminates someone else's pregnancy against their will I'm okay with them being charged with murder against the fetus rather than with assault against the woman. I don't find that inconsistent with supporting women's right to their own bodies on the question of abortion.
I'll go on a (maybe not so) weird tangent here. Today, a woman living on minimum wage in a developing country has a much greater chance of carrying a pregnancy to term and survive than the richest 0.001% did just a few hundred years ago. It's not unlikely that in a few more hundreds of years technology could take the body aspect out of the equation by having artificial wombs be a trivial thing. How would you folks view the question of abortion in that case? Sigh, now I'll go to bed thinking of state run baby farms to support an ever-aging population, that's what I get for checking TL before sleeping.
|
United States43609 Posts
Artificial wombs aren’t much different than the double womb system of marsupials (Australia is weird). A newborn joey is largely undeveloped and still lives inside the mother on which it is wholly dependent. The womb is replaced by a pouch, the umbilical cord by a nipple.
A human fetus growing in a sci fi external womb isn’t that much crazier than what Australian fauna already does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
