|
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 May 04 2022 03:55 plasmidghost wrote:
My bitterness isn't going to accomplish anything. Now I have to stop being combative and work with as many people as I can to fight back.
FWIW I very much share this vibe, though don't forget, there is always a time and a place for being combative, and I expect that to be even more true in the days to come. And that holds true even if you're being combative from all the way over in Belgium 
|
On May 04 2022 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III.
That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices.
Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. What about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, judges who, during their hearings, said they believed Roe was settled law and/or precedent on precedent, but are now overturning it? Surely we can agree they operated in bad faith. If they were going to overturn it, the good faith thing to do would have been to, you know, say that in their hearings instead of waffling enough to give Collins and Murkowski cover.
Neither of them committed to a particular outcome on any given case, as SC nominees specifically avoid doing that now. They probably said "settled law" in the sense of stare decisis, but stare decisis is not absolute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
On May 04 2022 03:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 03:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 03:49 farvacola wrote:
There is a not too remote chance that the leak came from Thomas or Alito's chambers upon their learning that at least one of the other three justices mentioned in the opinion would refuse to join it given that it completely overruled settled law. I am sure the conservatives will be just as up in arms over punishing them if this comes out. Indeed, if that's what happened, riling up folks who thought they had their Roe-overturning majority would be the point. It is funny to consider what the talking heads calling for FBI investigations and the like will say though.
There is already circumstantial evidence about a particular current Sotomayor clerk, so I wouldn't hang too much hope on this prospect. The clerk (1) has a demonstrated connection to the Politico reporter who accepted the leak, (2) has a demonstrated history of activism against Kavanaugh and the right-leaning members of the court, and (3) has in the past expressed the importance of occasionally breaking rules for civil disobedience purposes. (I won't link this info because it would name the clerk which I don't think is appropriate at this stage.)
|
It is possible to believe, in good faith, that a fetus has an inviolable right to live. I would disagree, but I wouldn't say that it's in bad faith in a vacuum. But there's your problem, good faith versus bad comes from context, from what else that person preaches and what they practice outside of that particular discussion.
When you claim to be pro-life, and talk about the sanctity of a fetus, but then you turn around and oppose massive social programs that benefit the poor, you oppose universal healthcare, you oppose education, you oppose a living wage, you oppose the reform of violent and racist police, and you oppose any law whatsoever that would protect people from gun violence, then your cries about the sanctity of life ring rather hollow. That's when you get pegged as pro-birth and anti-woman, correctly. And so in bad faith.
If you truly care about human life, it shouldn't matter what form it takes, it shouldn't matter what their skin color is, what their gender is, what their political leaning is, whether they're rich or poor, or whether they're unborn, young or old. You either care about all life, or some lives matter more than others. And it's okay to hold the latter. But drop the pretense, this isn't some virtuous undertaking in the grand mission of preserving and proposing all human life.
|
United States42499 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III. Yes, republicans always make "good-faith arguments" that just accidentally do the evil thing they want to do. And they never make good-faith arguments which would lead to something like workers getting more rights, rich people paying taxes, women or gay people having rights, or any other thing. Anyone who claims that this is about some constituational principle is naive or making a bad-faith argument. This is about outlawing abortion, because evangelicals love that shit. Republicans always argue that stuff is about some bigger principle, but they have shown that they have no problem turning those principles 180° if that would give them something they want.
Republicans insisted Obama couldn’t replace Scalia in an election year then replaced RBG with a lame duck senate after losing an election. Only bad faith arguments.
|
On May 04 2022 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III.
That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices.
Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. What about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, judges who, during their hearings, said they believed Roe was settled law and/or precedent on precedent, but are now overturning it? Surely we can agree they operated in bad faith. If they were going to overturn it, the good faith thing to do would have been to, you know, say that in their hearings instead of waffling enough to give Collins and Murkowski cover. Neither of them committed to a particular outcome on any given case, as SC nominees specifically avoid doing that now. They probably said "settled law" in the sense of stare decisis, but stare decisis is not absolute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
So your definition of "good faith" includes giving Republican Senators false assurances you would not overturn something you actually would using weasel language? That's an interesting definition. To me, using weasel language that misleads people is part of the definition of arguing in bad faith. I love that you throw in the "probably" as well when there are records of what each said, which were pretty damn confirmatory.
|
On May 04 2022 03:47 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 03:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 03:31 plasmidghost wrote:
I love how a lot of mainstream Dems are blaming losing abortion rights on progressives and leftists. Like, 92% of Bernie 2016 supporters voted for Clinton while only 75% of Clinton 2008 voters votes for Obama. Plus, Tim Kaine was anti-abortion. Plus, despite the numerous times Dems controlled every branch of the government, they never once codified Roe v. Wade. The Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, incompetent scumbags. The Dems are real spineless and incompetent, but the bolded part is a real bad take. Codifying Roe v Wade through the executive and legislative was and will forever be pointless because any SCOTUS that overturns it will find the federal law unconstitutional as an overreach by the federal government. This is exactly what will happen if a federal law is passed now. The only way to enshrine Roe was a constitutional amendment. Which was never within the Dems power. That's fair. It's absolutely depressing. But it honestly doesn't dissipate my disdain of the Dems because they could do major actions that a large majority of Americans support and thus win elections, but they don't and elections get handed to the GOP
It's not like the federal Democrats don't try. The House passed a bill last year to protect abortion which the vast majority of Democratic senators supported. But there's no bypassing the Senate filibuster because despite most Americans being quite moderate on abortion, not enough Republican senators will budge on it. And I don't think the Democrats ever had a real filibuster-proof Senate majority in recent memory, with Obama being the closest at 58-59 senators. And after this decision, even if somehow the Democrats end up with enough senators to make the filibuster a simple majority and pass an abortion law in next few years, it will probably be struck down by this SCOTUS.
I just find this tendency to blame Democrats for everything really bizarre from the progressives, as if Democrats are the only party with agency and always had a supermajority of liberals and progressives, when they never really did.
|
On May 04 2022 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:
It is possible to believe, in good faith, that a fetus has an inviolable right to live. I would disagree, but I wouldn't say that it's in bad faith in a vacuum. But there's your problem, good faith versus bad comes from context, from what else that person preaches and what they practice outside of that particular discussion.
When you claim to be pro-life, and talk about the sanctity of a fetus, but then you turn around and oppose massive social programs that benefit the poor, you oppose universal healthcare, you oppose education, you oppose a living wage, you oppose the reform of violent and racist police, and you oppose any law whatsoever that would protect people from gun violence, then your cries about the sanctity of life ring rather hollow. That's when you get pegged as pro-birth and anti-woman, correctly. And so in bad faith.
If you truly care about human life, it shouldn't matter what form it takes, it shouldn't matter what their skin color is, what their gender is, what their political leaning is, whether they're rich or poor, or whether they're unborn, young or old. You either care about all life, or some lives matter more than others. And it's okay to hold the latter. But drop the pretense, this isn't some virtuous undertaking in the grand mission of preserving and proposing all human life.
I agree that someone could be a good-faith pro-lifer (in terms of the sanctity of a fetus), and I also think we need to change the "pro-life" label, as you (and everyone else) have already pointed out that there are far more lives to consider than just those of a fetus. It's a complete misnomer, and Republicans are clearly anti-life in nearly every single way except when it comes to pregnancy. I think "pro-forced-birth" is more accurate and specific.
|
On May 04 2022 03:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III. That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices. Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. On May 04 2022 03:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 03:31 plasmidghost wrote:
I love how a lot of mainstream Dems are blaming losing abortion rights on progressives and leftists. Like, 92% of Bernie 2016 supporters voted for Clinton while only 75% of Clinton 2008 voters votes for Obama. Plus, Tim Kaine was anti-abortion. Plus, despite the numerous times Dems controlled every branch of the government, they never once codified Roe v. Wade. The Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, incompetent scumbags. The Dems are real spineless and incompetent, but the bolded part is a real bad take. Codifying Roe v Wade through the executive and legislative was and will forever be pointless because any SCOTUS that overturns it will find the federal law unconstitutional as an overreach by the federal government. This is exactly what will happen if a federal law is passed now. This is not necessarily true because the entire premise of the Alito opinion is that the decision should be made by Congress & the President rather than the SC. Congress might be able to codify Roe v. Wade via its commerce clause power. If they didn’t continually behave in manners that can only be described as bad faith, then perhaps they wouldn’t have that reputation. Presuming the leaks are accurate, which as you say may not entirely the case, I’m unsure how else to characterise Justices saying Roe is settled in confirmation hearings only to supposedly join this Alito opinion. This doesn’t extend to every Republican, I don’t even have a particular issue with either a pro-life or preference for devolution of laws to the state level, if these positions are held with any semblance of consistency to base principles.
Another thing is that the draft is from February. Entirely possible that the majority opinion has changed significantly since then. Which raises further questions about the leaker's motives.
On May 04 2022 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 04 2022 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III.
That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices.
Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. What about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, judges who, during their hearings, said they believed Roe was settled law and/or precedent on precedent, but are now overturning it? Surely we can agree they operated in bad faith. If they were going to overturn it, the good faith thing to do would have been to, you know, say that in their hearings instead of waffling enough to give Collins and Murkowski cover. Neither of them committed to a particular outcome on any given case, as SC nominees specifically avoid doing that now. They probably said "settled law" in the sense of stare decisis, but stare decisis is not absolute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis So your definition of "good faith" includes giving Republican Senators false assurances you would not overturn something you actually would using weasel language? That's an interesting definition. To me, using weasel language that misleads people is part of the definition of arguing in bad faith. I love that you throw in the "probably" as well when there are records of what each said, which were pretty damn confirmatory.
It's about legalese/a term of art, not "weasel language." No one should really have assumed that a SC nominee would commit to a particular outcome on a particular case.
|
Except when they say confirmatively that the law is settled.
Like, when you say you believe something, but turn around and change course when it's convenient because you don't actually believe it, that's the definition of bad faith lol. If you cannot be taken at your word because of your actions, then you are speaking in bad faith. Use other words and say something else if you don't want to be taken as acting in bad faith. It's not hard if you try.
|
On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 22:40 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
[quote]
Two questions: what removal of gun laws are you referencing, and how often do you spend money in red states? I'm talking about Florida pushing for no permits as well as Texas. Pre pandemic 2 weeks a year vacation. Often Sandpoint/whitefish. We have been to Disneyland as the larger family and were talking about Disneyworld, now that is off the table. Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. Show nested quote + You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder.
I feel the last few pages of this thread have been too much bandwagoning and not enough discussion, so I am happy to play devil's advocate if it actually gets people thinking and discussing rather than piling onto the "hurrdurr pro-life evil". Let me state first and foremost that I don't think the Republicans have a coherent pro-life argument, but I do believe there is one to be made. I'd say the closest I've seen is from the Christen Unie, a Dutch political party that is best described as strongly religious social democrats. I won't claim to voice their viewpoints, as I don't think it's particularly relevant, but they are generally in favor of strong social projects to help those in need, including the poor, immigrants, women and children. At the same time, they are against abortion, as they see it as murder.
The main point I want to make is that a coherent ethical argument against abortion can be made starting from two axioms:
1. Fetuses are humans.
2. Saving another human's life is a greater good than bodily autonomy.
If you then allow that there is a distinction between doing and allowing (as many philosophers do), it is entirely defensible to argue that abortion should be outlawed (doing murder of the fetus), and also that the government should not oblige people to donate their kidneys (allowing people to die).
As for the thought experiment of the violinist: from these points of view, it should be entirely clear that yes, in the highly unlikely event that this happens, it should be forbidden to unplug that person. That said, it is also forbidden to put you in that situation without your consent, and the Society of Music Lovers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, that won't help you in your current predicament, and you will have to bear the violinist to term: the situation has changed from one where you can help, but inaction allows the violinist to die, to one where you do cause the violinist's death by unplugging yourself.
|
On May 04 2022 04:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about Florida pushing for no permits as well as Texas.
Pre pandemic 2 weeks a year vacation. Often Sandpoint/whitefish. We have been to Disneyland as the larger family and were talking about Disneyworld, now that is off the table. Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. I feel the last few pages of this thread have been too much bandwagoning and not enough discussion, so I am happy to play devil's advocate if it actually gets people thinking and discussing rather than piling onto the "hurrdurr pro-life evil". Let me state first and foremost that I don't think the Republicans have a coherent pro-life argument, but I do believe there is one to be made. I'd say the closest I've seen is from the Christen Unie, a Dutch political party that is best described as strongly religious social democrats. I won't claim to voice their viewpoints, as I don't think it's particularly relevant, but they are generally in favor of strong social projects to help those in need, including the poor, immigrants, women and children. At the same time, they are against abortion, as they see it as murder. The main point I want to make is that a coherent ethical argument against abortion can be made starting from two axioms: 1. Fetuses are humans. 2. Saving another human's life is a greater good than bodily autonomy. If you then allow that there is a distinction between doing and allowing (as many philosophers do), it is entirely defensible to argue that abortion should be outlawed (doing murder of the fetus), and also that the government should not oblige people to donate their kidneys (allowing people to die). As for the thought experiment of the violinist: from these points of view, it should be entirely clear that yes, in the highly unlikely event that this happens, it should be forbidden to unplug that person. That said, it is also forbidden to put you in that situation without your consent, and the Society of Music Lovers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, that won't help you in your current predicament, and you will have to bear the violinist to term: the situation has changed from one where you can help, but inaction allows the violinist to die, to one where you do cause the violinist's death by unplugging yourself.
I appreciate the effort to try articulate a reasonable version of a pro-life stance.
But those axioms are stupid - they're completely (deliberately) blind to the distinction between a "human" with a half developed nervous system and an actualized person.
But I'm rather biased and believe that being forced birth (in general, but especially the not-even-early-pregnancy stuff) is just indefensible and incompatible with any modest mix of sense and compassion, so IDK.
Also, just, WTF USA.
|
On May 04 2022 04:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 03:55 WombaT wrote:On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III. That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices. Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. On May 04 2022 03:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 03:31 plasmidghost wrote:
I love how a lot of mainstream Dems are blaming losing abortion rights on progressives and leftists. Like, 92% of Bernie 2016 supporters voted for Clinton while only 75% of Clinton 2008 voters votes for Obama. Plus, Tim Kaine was anti-abortion. Plus, despite the numerous times Dems controlled every branch of the government, they never once codified Roe v. Wade. The Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, incompetent scumbags. The Dems are real spineless and incompetent, but the bolded part is a real bad take. Codifying Roe v Wade through the executive and legislative was and will forever be pointless because any SCOTUS that overturns it will find the federal law unconstitutional as an overreach by the federal government. This is exactly what will happen if a federal law is passed now. This is not necessarily true because the entire premise of the Alito opinion is that the decision should be made by Congress & the President rather than the SC. Congress might be able to codify Roe v. Wade via its commerce clause power. If they didn’t continually behave in manners that can only be described as bad faith, then perhaps they wouldn’t have that reputation. Presuming the leaks are accurate, which as you say may not entirely the case, I’m unsure how else to characterise Justices saying Roe is settled in confirmation hearings only to supposedly join this Alito opinion. This doesn’t extend to every Republican, I don’t even have a particular issue with either a pro-life or preference for devolution of laws to the state level, if these positions are held with any semblance of consistency to base principles. Another thing is that the draft is from February. Entirely possible that the majority opinion has changed significantly since then. Which raises further questions about the leaker's motives. Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 04 2022 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III.
That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices.
Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. What about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, judges who, during their hearings, said they believed Roe was settled law and/or precedent on precedent, but are now overturning it? Surely we can agree they operated in bad faith. If they were going to overturn it, the good faith thing to do would have been to, you know, say that in their hearings instead of waffling enough to give Collins and Murkowski cover. Neither of them committed to a particular outcome on any given case, as SC nominees specifically avoid doing that now. They probably said "settled law" in the sense of stare decisis, but stare decisis is not absolute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis So your definition of "good faith" includes giving Republican Senators false assurances you would not overturn something you actually would using weasel language? That's an interesting definition. To me, using weasel language that misleads people is part of the definition of arguing in bad faith. I love that you throw in the "probably" as well when there are records of what each said, which were pretty damn confirmatory. It's about legalese/a term of art, not "weasel language." No one should really have assumed that a SC nominee would commit to a particular outcome on a particular case.
Something like 90% of legalese is about arguing in bad faith. Layers are almost never arguing what they actually believe (hell, your defense attorney definitely shouldn't!). But that doesn't make using legelese in confirmation hearings to deceive others not arguing in bad faith.
If you have multiple conditioning their approval of your nomination based on your statements that deceived them...you fucked up, whether you were "technically" lying or not. And there is incontrovertible evidence this is exactly what happened with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
|
the idea that you shouldn’t take a judges word for what they say to congress during their appointment hearings is the most 2020 republican thing i’ve ever heard.
hey just don’t assume the supreme court judge we’re nominating won’t lie to your face. after all, they provided sufficient plausible deniability. (they didn’t.)
illegitimate judges with bankrupt morals and a lifetime appointment. bless their hearts.
one only sits because republicans refuse to vote on a presidents nominee. the other sits in spite of alleged sexual misconduct. but, trust him, he said he didn’t do it right to congress. under oath.
oh but ignore what he said about his opinion on precedent. that part was the lie. not the part about alleged sexual assault.
and some of the folks here eat this shit up like it’s thanksgiving turkey.
|
United States42499 Posts
On May 04 2022 04:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about Florida pushing for no permits as well as Texas.
Pre pandemic 2 weeks a year vacation. Often Sandpoint/whitefish. We have been to Disneyland as the larger family and were talking about Disneyworld, now that is off the table. Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. I feel the last few pages of this thread have been too much bandwagoning and not enough discussion, so I am happy to play devil's advocate if it actually gets people thinking and discussing rather than piling onto the "hurrdurr pro-life evil". Let me state first and foremost that I don't think the Republicans have a coherent pro-life argument, but I do believe there is one to be made. I'd say the closest I've seen is from the Christen Unie, a Dutch political party that is best described as strongly religious social democrats. I won't claim to voice their viewpoints, as I don't think it's particularly relevant, but they are generally in favor of strong social projects to help those in need, including the poor, immigrants, women and children. At the same time, they are against abortion, as they see it as murder. The main point I want to make is that a coherent ethical argument against abortion can be made starting from two axioms: 1. Fetuses are humans. 2. Saving another human's life is a greater good than bodily autonomy. If you then allow that there is a distinction between doing and allowing (as many philosophers do), it is entirely defensible to argue that abortion should be outlawed (doing murder of the fetus), and also that the government should not oblige people to donate their kidneys (allowing people to die). As for the thought experiment of the violinist: from these points of view, it should be entirely clear that yes, in the highly unlikely event that this happens, it should be forbidden to unplug that person. That said, it is also forbidden to put you in that situation without your consent, and the Society of Music Lovers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, that won't help you in your current predicament, and you will have to bear the violinist to term: the situation has changed from one where you can help, but inaction allows the violinist to die, to one where you do cause the violinist's death by unplugging yourself.
The doing vs allowing distinction is utterly absurd. If a doctor says “say yes if you want to be unplugged” and you affirm yes then it’s murder. If they say “say yes if you don’t want to be unplugged” and you say nothing then you have merely allowed the natural course of events to take place and you’re fine.
The choice to say “yes” represents a choice. Both saying the word and not saying the word are deliberate actions, we can’t twist this so that no choice has been made. And once we’re good with forbidding people to choose bodily autonomy over human life we’re going on a wild ride of mandatory seizures, utilitarian organ farming, and slavery.
There’s a reason bodily autonomy is viewed as such a fundamental right.
|
On May 04 2022 05:23 brian wrote:
the idea that you shouldn’t take a judges word for what they say to congress during their appointment hearings is the most 2020 republican thing i’ve ever heard.
hey just don’t assume the supreme court judge we’re nominating won’t lie to your face. after all, they provided sufficient plausible deniability. (they didn’t.)
illegitimate judges with bankrupt morals and a lifetime appointment. bless their hearts.
one only sits because republicans refuse to vote on a presidents nominee. the other sits in spite of alleged sexual misconduct. but, trust him, he said he didn’t do it right to congress. under oath.
oh but ignore what he said about his opinion on precedent. that part was the lie. not the part about alleged sexual assault.
and some of the folks here eat this shit up like it’s thanksgiving turkey.
It is the fault of Susan Collins and others for not understanding what stare decisis. Kavanaugh & Gorsuch didn't lie, people just don't know what stare decisis is.
|
On May 04 2022 05:30 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 05:23 brian wrote:
the idea that you shouldn’t take a judges word for what they say to congress during their appointment hearings is the most 2020 republican thing i’ve ever heard.
hey just don’t assume the supreme court judge we’re nominating won’t lie to your face. after all, they provided sufficient plausible deniability. (they didn’t.)
illegitimate judges with bankrupt morals and a lifetime appointment. bless their hearts.
one only sits because republicans refuse to vote on a presidents nominee. the other sits in spite of alleged sexual misconduct. but, trust him, he said he didn’t do it right to congress. under oath.
oh but ignore what he said about his opinion on precedent. that part was the lie. not the part about alleged sexual assault.
and some of the folks here eat this shit up like it’s thanksgiving turkey. It is the fault of Susan Collins and others for not understanding what stare decisis. Kavanaugh & Gorsuch didn't lie, people just don't know what stare decisis is.
you’re the ‘some of the folks here.’
|
On May 04 2022 05:30 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 05:23 brian wrote:
the idea that you shouldn’t take a judges word for what they say to congress during their appointment hearings is the most 2020 republican thing i’ve ever heard.
hey just don’t assume the supreme court judge we’re nominating won’t lie to your face. after all, they provided sufficient plausible deniability. (they didn’t.)
illegitimate judges with bankrupt morals and a lifetime appointment. bless their hearts.
one only sits because republicans refuse to vote on a presidents nominee. the other sits in spite of alleged sexual misconduct. but, trust him, he said he didn’t do it right to congress. under oath.
oh but ignore what he said about his opinion on precedent. that part was the lie. not the part about alleged sexual assault.
and some of the folks here eat this shit up like it’s thanksgiving turkey. It is the fault of Susan Collins and others for not understanding what stare decisis. Kavanaugh & Gorsuch didn't lie, people just don't know what stare decisis is.
It's not like there was weeks when they could have cleared it up with her and her office or anything like that when she openly and publicly said what her interpretation was. Oh wait, there totally was! But it was more important to, you know, not speak with her in good faith and instead deceive her to advance their agenda.
(of course, this predisposes Collins herself was acting in good faith-which is almost certainly not the case, as only a total moron believed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wouldn't overturn Roe the second they got the chance, and I don't think she's a total moron)
|
I don't think Democrats plan of "Just wait a decade or two and we'll get you your rights back" is going to be very persuasive.
|
|
|
On May 04 2022 05:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
[quote]
Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. I feel the last few pages of this thread have been too much bandwagoning and not enough discussion, so I am happy to play devil's advocate if it actually gets people thinking and discussing rather than piling onto the "hurrdurr pro-life evil". Let me state first and foremost that I don't think the Republicans have a coherent pro-life argument, but I do believe there is one to be made. I'd say the closest I've seen is from the Christen Unie, a Dutch political party that is best described as strongly religious social democrats. I won't claim to voice their viewpoints, as I don't think it's particularly relevant, but they are generally in favor of strong social projects to help those in need, including the poor, immigrants, women and children. At the same time, they are against abortion, as they see it as murder. The main point I want to make is that a coherent ethical argument against abortion can be made starting from two axioms: 1. Fetuses are humans. 2. Saving another human's life is a greater good than bodily autonomy. If you then allow that there is a distinction between doing and allowing (as many philosophers do), it is entirely defensible to argue that abortion should be outlawed (doing murder of the fetus), and also that the government should not oblige people to donate their kidneys (allowing people to die). As for the thought experiment of the violinist: from these points of view, it should be entirely clear that yes, in the highly unlikely event that this happens, it should be forbidden to unplug that person. That said, it is also forbidden to put you in that situation without your consent, and the Society of Music Lovers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, that won't help you in your current predicament, and you will have to bear the violinist to term: the situation has changed from one where you can help, but inaction allows the violinist to die, to one where you do cause the violinist's death by unplugging yourself. The doing vs allowing distinction is utterly absurd. If a doctor says “say yes if you want to be unplugged” and you affirm yes then it’s murder. If they say “say yes if you don’t want to be unplugged” and you say nothing then you have merely allowed the natural course of events to take place and you’re fine. The choice to say “yes” represents a choice. Both saying the word and not saying the word are deliberate actions, we can’t twist this so that no choice has been made. And once we’re good with forbidding people to choose bodily autonomy over human life we’re going on a wild ride of mandatory seizures, utilitarian organ farming, and slavery. There’s a reason bodily autonomy is viewed as such a fundamental right.
Consent is also a continuous state of being, not a binary label that examines a single moment of "yes" or "no". People can consent to something in the beginning and revoke that consent later on. You can begin downloading a 50 GB file to your hard drive, because you want to, but cancel it immediately after. Or halfway through. Or 99% of the way to completion. All result in no downloaded file.
Kind of a natural extension of what you're saying: if we're going to grant that people have bodily autonomy, that needs to be flexible to what the person's wishes are, and it needs to allow them to change. You can agree to attach to the violinist, and consent to that request, but that absolutely should not behold you to the full 9 month course if you change your mind, for any or no reason. You should be able to revoke your consent at any time.
The whole suite of Republican laws aimed at limiting women's resources, punishing women and doctors for pursuing the women's right to an abortion, etc. are all aimed at forcing consent where there is none. You have to carry the child to term, even if it's medically non-viable, or the product of incest or rape. Men want to have all the sex, but when the woman is accidentally impregnated there is no discussion whatsoever of the man's responsibility. The whole picture is imbalanced and disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
