File: 1656107606313.jpg (84.47 KB, 586x600, 293:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Fluttershy knows best.
Question: should the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade be looked at in isolation -- a technical Supreme court issue of no great concern to non-experts -- or does it signal deeper meaning about human rights, state political directions, or concerns over American demographics (Elon Musk: “Population collapse is potentially the greatest risk to the future of civilization.”)?
Do you think other supreme court rulings based on the 14th Amendment (&etc.) will also be found to have been mistaken in the near future?
File: 1656107869495.png (158.41 KB, 344x372, 86:93, if I get this straight.png) ImgOps Google
I wonder what our resident Fluttershy attorney at law feels about SCOTUS and all the stuff.
Is it like the leftwing outrage storm over nothing?
Or are we plunging straight into a dark age?
Whatever happens here on /townhall/ I think it will leave me disappointed in humanity once more.
>>11321>I wonder what our resident Fluttershy attorney at law feels about SCOTUS and all the stuff.
Nobody will be identified here, so we will have no way of knowing.>Or are we plunging straight into a dark age?
I think there's always an impulse to extrapolate, and that's usually wrong. Probably a meandering path.>Whatever happens here on /townhall/ I think it will leave me disappointed in humanity once more.
Do you mean this board will disappoint you? Or are you talking about the US Government in general?
File: 1656127043786.jpeg (75.35 KB, 700x810, 70:81, signs.jpeg) ImgOps Google
Ok, I posted this a bit ago, and then deleted it because I realized the sourcing was a little more dubious than I originally thought. But you know what, screw it I'll leave it here anyway.
File: 1656130054122.png (70.6 KB, 700x560, 5:4, 1637365684046.png) ImgOps Google
I am going to try to explain this as best as I can here. I know this is going to sound bad to other people; but here me out. This is a sheer constitutional legal issue here. In 1973 SCOTUS essentially created law from the bench. That in itself is unconstitutional. Rather, it is completely meaningless. This is NOT how law is created in the United States. The reason why Roe v. Wade was overturned was because it doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in the first place. HOWEVER. Congress right now can make this change if they so choose to as the constitution mentions NOTHING about abortion in general. Hope this helps you understand it better. This is basic legal stuff. Judicial activism is not the answer to solving real world issues. Rather it's just a band aid that does nothing for it. The argument of the 14th amendment would hold a lot more if we were talking about actual established law. So, again. SCOTUS cannot create law from the bench as many think they can. That role belongs to congress.
Would it be feasible to fix in congress right now?
Because it doesn't look like SCOTUS just scraps these rulings to allow Congress to fix it and a lot of GOP states jump on the opportunity to use this gap to force harsh laws on people.
I mean, it doesn't look like this is done with the best intentions in mind.
File: 1656138129216.jpg (170.21 KB, 850x866, 425:433, __lumine_and_paimon_genshi….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>11332>Would it be feasible to fix in congress right now?
Sure. That is if they want to take the effort to do so.
Again, SCOTUS focuses on what is constitutionally legal and what isn't. That's been their job since the beginning of the country. There is are no constitutional boundaries for as far as know to prevent aborting anything. So yeah, congress could make a real change instead of caring what SCOTUS has ruled on. This country was NEVER meant to rely on federal power ever in the way people thinks it does.
what is constitutionally legal and what isn't. And they determined
that the 14th amendment is precisely the constitutional boundary that you claim ignorance of. Until now, at least.
Questions like "Where does the constitution mention abortion?" make you sound like someone as clueless about what you call "basic legal stuff" as those who would ask "Where does the constitution mention separation of church and state?"
File: 1656139447933.jpg (1.02 MB, 760x1347, 760:1347, __lumine_and_paimon_genshi….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I am going by something that has existed for 100's of years though. Though welcome to your new understanding of law I guess.> "Where does the constitution mention abortion?"
answer the question then
oh wait you cant because it DOESN'T exist. the whole point of the constitution is to point what the government CAN do
The decision made no sense in the first place. There was no constitutional basis for abortion, in either respect.
It was bench legislation, plain and simple. Overturning it was to be expected.
I don't see what it has to do with human rights, state political directions, or concerns over american demographics. The decision doesn't legalize or make illegal abortion. It merely puts such a decision into the hands of states.
At best, this is a devolution of power away from centralization and into more local governance. But even that seems like a stretch to me.
Seems to me it was an expected error from a group that has no authority over the matter reascending a mistake before it causes major issue.
If SCOTUS 'determines' that people with green hats must be shot with a crossbow on sight, does that make it a reasonable determination of the constitution and its boundries set forth as intended by the founding fathers, or is that clearly something well outside the bounds of what is constitutionally established, and an example of legislation from the bench?
You seem to presume that if the supreme court says something, it must inherently be correct.
This is obviously not the case.
If you're going to argue otherwise, then argue the constitutional validity. Don't just insist everyone else is ignorant while you only bother to appeal to authority.
The question now is where do we go from here?
Because SCOTUS scrapped Roe V Wade, several states jumped on the opportunity to ban abortion and some states apparently already putting the death penalty forth for those who break these rules.
It's not like they are offering any alternatives to preserve the safeties Roe V Wade offers.
And news ghas it they're zooming in on birth control and gay marriages next.
You can argue "Well they're only doing their job and it's because the dems fail to set the laws properly."
but this did open the way for a cloud of toxic miasma to overflow the nation.> I don't see what it has to do with human rights, state political directions, or concerns over american demographics.
Just saying, this event doesn't seem to make things hunky dory for women or, with the ambitions uttered, towards the LGBTQ community.
I'm not really overly sold on the fearmongering, honestly. I realize plenty're insisting some kind of slippery slope for a bunch of other things, but I'm quite doubtful.
Though ultimately, if it's really that important, vital, or whatever, then it should be passed through the legislature, not from the bench.>Just saying, this event doesn't seem to make things hunky dory for women or, with the ambitions uttered, towards the LGBTQ community.
You realize plenty of women oppose abortion, yes?
The convenient narrative has this as a "women's rights" issue, yes, but that doesn't make it so.
Of course political sorts're going to try to take what advantages of narrative they can.
Leaving all of this aside anyway, I'm not of the stance we should leave in place clearly flawed law or precedent for convenience, anyway.
There's a worthwhile principle at play, here. The Supreme Court should be working to preserve the constitution, not to further some political ends, regardless of how good we might find it.
Not just because of the importance of preserving the constitution, but because when you grant that kind of power and authority, it will inevitably be abused by your enemies.
>>11340> You realize plenty of women oppose abortion, yes?
And I can think poorly about men wearing tacky suits. But that doesn't mean we should make it so these men should be locked up or worse.
There is something very wrong with what's going on around on abortion and quite a handful other stuff in the states right now.> Leaving all of this aside anyway, I'm not of the stance we should leave in place clearly flawed law or precedent for convenience
Then I hope at least you can agree that we URGENTLY need something in place that does this right.
And I think whoever chose to rollback Roe V Wade at least seriously works on getting this properly corrected ASAP. If they do so, no more complaints from me.
The outcome as is is horrible and please don't argue that people are grasping at straws by saying this is an issue regarding human rights and an attack towards women.
Maybe the repeal of the precedent can be seen as neutral, but its fallout right now definitely isn't.
File: 1656196845652.png (535.71 KB, 800x389, 800:389, medium.png) ImgOps Google
Some people prefer fascism, although my perception is neither party embraces the label.>>11325
Judicial activism is called allowing the Constitution to be living document by those who approve.
From a strict standpoint, judicial activism doesn't seem very consistent with the founding ideas of our government. Of course, I know better than to ask consistency from state power. I gather substantial law -- eg. a Constitutional Amendment -- is much harder to get through than a Judicial ruling, and enough people on both sides feel change is necessary and judicial power is expanding.
>>11342>And I can think poorly about men wearing tacky suits. But that doesn't mean we should make it so these men should be locked up or worse.
That's lovely and all, but nobody's calling tacky suitwearing a "men's rights" issue, and for that matter, there's not a moral question of whether or not that tacky suit is alive and ought be protected, either.
If you're going to go for an analogy, I'd recommend picking something that's actually fitting. Usually helps to get the point across.>There is something very wrong with what's going on around on abortion and quite a handful other stuff in the states right now.
There's something very wrong with everywhere, with every thing, depending on who you ask.
I'm not inclined to default to such vague insistence as evidence of a problem.>Then I hope at least you can agree that we URGENTLY need something in place that does this right.
I'm rather neutral on the debate. I can see arguments for both sides, in respect to rights and what takes precedent.>And I think whoever chose to rollback Roe V Wade at least seriously works on getting this properly corrected ASAP.
Legislation is none of their business.
Their job is interpreting the consistution of the united states.
Why on earth would we want unelected judges dictating what must be done in the legislative sphere?>The outcome as is is horrible and please don't argue that people are grasping at straws by saying this is an issue regarding human rights and an attack towards women.
It's not "grasping at straws" i have issue with.
It's the lack of a coherent reasoning, beyond insisting it is the case.
To you, the sexualization of children in schools doesn't need fixing.
To others, it does.
What's so hard to understand about that?
As far as "urgent concerns", you can have more than one focus. Though in truth, when it comes to raising the next generation, I think there are quite few more important matters, besides.
Interesting to think about. The founders -- well, Jefferson at least -- wanted Legislative supremacy, thinking this branch was most accountable to the people, and in theory the Judicial and Executive are only empowered to respond to legislation, preferably keeping very close to its text.
I get a sense that Congress is becoming relatively less powerful. I'm not quite sure why, or if the sense is correct.
Regardless of whether or not you think abortion is a right or a good thing to allow, the supreme court decision is really the only logical one that could have been made.
The interpretation of the constitution in Roe v. Wade was so broad in its scope that it essentially set a precedent that allows for easy legislation from the bench. By simply declaring that something is a "right", or a "liberty" that people have a right to, the supreme court could use that interpretation to completely override a whole swath of state laws and state responsibilities.
In fact, such interpretation has been used as a partial foundation for other court decisions, such as the "legalization" of gay-marriage, a clear instance of legislation from the bench. Such action violates the very purpose of the supreme court, and so such a broad interpretation should have been overturned long ago.
Again, this is all regardless of your views and opinions on abortion, gay marriage, and more.
The supreme court is simply doing its job by interpreting the laws responsibly. If those laws are not what we as a people need, or do not fit our modern morals, then we should advocate to change them in our states through election and contacting our representatives.
It is far better to have explicit laws than to push for vague, wide-reaching interpretations of laws. So if we want certain laws, we should push for those laws to be passed in our respective states. It is incredibly dangerous to ask the supreme court to circumvent that.
This is very much a huge change in how our political system is viewed, and I believe it is a positive and necessary one, even if there are growing pains in the process.
Now that this been overturned, all court rulings derived from that original interpretation must also be reconsidered, by logical consequence. Will they be found to be mistaken? Who knows. But they should be at least looked at, and interpretations re-formed.
My personal views on abortion and gay marriage are irrelevant to this discussion. This is entirely about the functioning of the legal system.
Exactly this. We have Congress for a reason. People are acting like this is a partisan thing, but it makes perfect sense for a rule-of-law perspective.
Personally, It's sad to me that liberals will so gleefully cast aside due process, civility, and rule of law for basically any issue-of-the-day they don't "win". But then, most conservatives are probably like that as well. Perhaps people in general are fundamentally unprincipled.
That does tend to be a consistent issue for both sides, mostly because most people don't understand the basics of the laws that we already have in place.
A lot of laws that get promoted and run on are already in place. A lot of freedoms people claim they don't have, they already have. And a lot of assumptions people make about which part of government is responsible for what they want are just plain wrong.
And I think politicians create this confusion intentionally so that it's easier to get elected. "When I get elected, I'll do [insert promise here]!", even though their position wouldn't have any legal responsibility over that. Or "So-and-so is the reason we can't have [insert assumed civil right here], so we should get rid of them!", even though its not so-and-so's jurisdiction.
Honestly it's frustrating to watch, especially since that confusion is the hidden main crux of most political arguments.
If people at least read the constitution and understood what part of government was responsible for what, there would be far less issues in political discussion.>>11352
However, part of that is that the states have the right to add any restrictions on those freedoms that the constitution doesn't explicitly protect (10th amendment).
If it were interpreted such that states weren't allowed to make any laws that the constitution or federal government didn't already explicitly make, then that would be a serious issue for a myriad of reasons. The division of the country into different states wouldn't even be legally necessary at that point, despite the massive differences in needs and morals between the different populations. Not to mention the terrifying centralization of power that would develop with the federal government.
The supreme court cannot strike down any
law. Only those which conflict with existing laws.
There is a difference between fabricating a very specific right from an infinitely broad interpretation of existing law (which is what Roe did), and striking down laws that clearly conflict with constitutional or federal law.
The supreme court's job is to interpret existing laws, and to resolve conflicts in those laws if there are any. Sometimes laws conflict with each other, and sometimes that needs resolving. That responsibility is the only reason they can "negate" laws.
They cannot stretch the interpretations of existing laws beyond reasonable bounds (like the 14th amendment, &c.) in order to produce new incredibly specific precedents which act like laws. If they were allowed to do that, the supreme court could just set whatever precedent they wanted, strike down any law they disliked, and become the most powerful branch of government overnight.
As much as legislation from the bench seems like a buzz phrase, it is a very real danger to how our representative government should safely function, and the threat of it should not be taken lightly.
Negation of laws is not creation of laws, first off.
But for the "that's just what the supreme court does" argument; See >>11337>"If SCOTUS 'determines' that people with green hats must be shot with a crossbow on sight, does that make it a reasonable determination of the constitution and its boundries set forth as intended by the founding fathers, or is that clearly something well outside the bounds of what is constitutionally established, and an example of legislation from the bench?"
>>11358>Does abortion have anything to do with human rights... ?
Abortion has a LOT
to do with human rights. Depending on whether or not you consider a human fetus to be human or not, and at what stage you consider it to be so, it completely changes how it should be handled.
If you consider a human fetus to be a human being, then obviously the child's right to life supersedes the mother's rights to her body functions, and abortion should be banned.
Side note: The way I'm using "abortion" here is not
referring to medical emergencies or miscarriages, which are an entirely different discussion.
As for what stage a fetus is considered human, even the strictest states, like Texas and Oklahoma, allow abortion up to about 6 weeks, which is reasonable.
Since different regions of the country obviously have different beliefs about the point at which a human fetus is a human being, those different regions should be able to implement different laws regarding when abortion should or shouldn't be legal, if at all.
There will never be a majority consensus large enough for a federal law on the topic to be reasonable.
That's why we're 50 states and not one big "America", after all.
>>11358>Does abortion have anything to do with human rights,
Plausibly. I think there's good arguments pertaining to rights from both perspectives, albeit not ones constitutionally guaranteed as I understand them.
This said; I don't think the argument is properly entertained, with both sides pretty absolute against eachother, not willing to examine the other's position. Though I do think the pro-choice side is a bit worse about it, as near universally with those I've talked to, they refuse to even acknowledge the argument of their opposition as that the baby is alive in the womb, often insisting some alterior motive.
There's an interesting debate to be had whether or not bodily autonomy, or property rights even, trump whatever rights the child could have, for example.
If you've the right to kick out someone from your home, even if that means they end up dead on the street, do you have the same right to do so with an unborn child, for instance.
Morally, I think there's cause to say it's not a good act. But that doesn't mean it ought be illegal, either, as far as rights go.
This question is largely why I'm indifferent to the 'yes' or 'no' to things.
I didn't know Texas allowed any abortions. I see then. The question is mostly at what period in gestation the child is protected, and that is regional.>>11361>If you've the right to kick out someone from your home, even if that means they end up dead on the street, do you have the same right to do so with an unborn child, for instance.
I sometimes reflect that nobody argues against human rights in principle. But it's merely a frame for assertion because rights are often going to be in conflict with other assertions.
A mother's right to evict another from private property (or rented property), in the case of a born child. And a person's right to control their body in an unborn child.
As opposed to a child/fetus right to care and life.
I don't know if there's anything in human rights theory that can really decide. Sometimes I've gone with the reduction humans rights are those rights human happen to get, but that's problematic, too. Then there's the rabbit hole of who decides who is human.
>>11360>If you consider a human fetus to be a human being, then obviously the child's right to life supersedes the mother's rights to her body functions, and abortion should be banned.
"Obviously"? Would that argument hold up even for an adult human?
If I came to you demanding your kidney or I would die, does my right to life supercede your right to your body? Should the government come say you aren't allowed to refuse, and put you on trial for murder if you do?
>>11363>If I came to you demanding your kidney or I would die, does my right to life supercede your right to your body? Should the government come say you aren't allowed to refuse, and put you on trial for murder if you do?
In order to make this metaphor properly comparable to abortion, there are a few changes we need to make to it:
1. It would have to have been my previous actions that caused you to need a new kidney in the first place. (I poisoned you, or whatever)
2. My choices would only be between either giving you the kidney, or shooting you so that you don't need it. (simply not giving you the kidney isn't an option)
In this situation, I obviously morally owe you my kidney. If I choose to shoot you instead of giving you my kidney, yes, I should be put on trial for murder, especially since it is my fault that you needed the new kidney in the first place.
This metaphor is a bit mangled at this point, but I think it gets the point across.
When it comes to abortion, the overwhelming majority of cases of pregnancy are the result of the choices of the mother (and father). For the mother to then kill the child she created in order to avoid the consequences of her choices is obviously morally wrong.But again, this is all under the assumption that one considers the fetus to be a human being. And this doesn't address situations like rape, which requires different reasoning altogether.
In short, in my view, the argument does indeed hold up. The child's right to life supersedes the mother's right to her body.
I find the proper application would lack a conflict between rights. But that might be my more absolutist approach.
In the case of a pregnancy; It comes down to who bears the responsibility, as well as of course if the child constitutes a life to begin with that would hold rights at all.
Though I would add, there's no right to life or care. Merely, someone murdering you would obviously be a violation of your rights.
Which is why there's issue here, versus when, say, a miscarriage happens.
Removal as I understand it is directly lethal, and of course there's the simple reality that removing it is well understood to kill it, regardless.
For myself; This is why I'm largely neutral. Because it's an unknown, largely unwinnable situation.
I'd err on the side of caution and never have an abortion, if it were my decision.
But, on the same token, I'd err on the side of caution and probably not ban them, so as to leave the moral onus on the individual, and not risk violating any rights.>>11365
Instead of simply saying it, demonstrate it.
When you just say "MUH STRAWMAN" without argument or reasoning, it just looks disingenuous. Especially to a long reply that goes in such detail as Beaver's.
>>11367>I find the proper application would lack a conflict between rights.
That was one of the ideas, yes. I'm just not sure there are any practical set of rights that don't conflict.
I gather if people have no right to life in your assertions, rights systems may sometimes ask for martyrs.
In general I try not to form opinions about things that don't involve me, and while the reasons are confidential, I don't think abortion will be necessary in my case.
>>11368>That was one of the ideas, yes. I'm just not sure there are any practical set of rights that don't conflict.
Say we have only a single right such as the right to life, and we're given a situation like the trolly problem with one innocent person on each track. That's a conflict. Only one person's right to life can be preserved.
So even with the simplest possible system of rights, there will be conflict, and rights will be violated given certain circumstances.
My personal approach to solving this issue is to, instead of saying that all rights are "absolute" and must be preserved come hell or high water, simply create a priority system where some "rights" take priority over others, or have relative values that can be weighed.
For example, a simple system with two "rights": 1 - Life, 2 - Liberty. In that order.
So, I have the Liberty to swing a sword around all I want, except
when it conflicts with someone else's Life, which takes higher priority under this system. And so a violation of that system of priorities would be a violation of rights, and therefore morally wrong.
This way, conflicts can be resolved by simply weighing priorities, and when multiple options are seemingly equally valuable (which without omniscience, is sure to happen), it can be decided by coin flip, deeper deliberation, etc.
Obviously there's a LOT more minutiae to a system like that, but that's the gist of my approach.Some rights take priority over others when in conflict.
People tend to function this way intuitively, and I optimistically believe that the overwhelming majority of people have the same set of rights at the top of their personal system of priorities.
But when people disagree about the reality of a situation, it doesn't really help even if everyone has the same priority system. So that's a problem too.
Then there's the whole question as to what system of priorities should be codified into law, which is an entirely different, much more complicated issue. Though my general thought on that is that only the rights that the overwhelming majority of a population agree on should be codified for that population. Where there is strong disagreement, there should (usually) be no law in order to allow each individual or sub-population to make their own decision on it (yet another reason subdivision into states, cities, counties, etc. is a good idea).
...I think I got off topic? Maybe?
>>11369>Say we have only a single right such as the right to life, and we're given a situation like the trolly problem with one innocent person on each track. That's a conflict. Only one person's right to life can be preserved.
Which should demonstrate the notion of a "right to life" as inherently flawed. As a right that does not exist, as a simple matter of objective logic. One that cannot exist, as it would be in direct conflict with itself.
Nobody has a right to life. However, they do have a right to their
The distinction here is subtle, but important; The right is not to living. The right is to the ownership of your own existence.
>>11370>Which should demonstrate the notion of a "right to life" as inherently flawed.
I don't think so.
I think it only demonstrates that "rights" can't be absolute (always protected no matter what), not that the idea of a right to life is flawed. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
People definitely have the right to life (the right to be alive), but in some rare cases that can come into conflict with other people's right to life, and someone's right just won't be protected in that case.
It doesn't mean that the right can't exist, just that it will inevitably be violated at some point.
In the priority system I described, that's an acceptable outcome, because it's not about being absolute, it's about being adaptable.
If the standard is a generalized feel-good idea, rather than an absolute rule, why not have "rights" like a job, money, paved roads, air conditioning, and so on?
What ultimately distinguishes the rights you suggest, from the comfort type rights people demand?
"Adaptability" in rights gets them violated.
Frankly, it's the go to of every politician when it comes to violating them. Yes we want free speech, but not that
free speech, they'll say.
If your rights aren't ridged they get violated.>>11372
Sure. But then rights weren't much a thing in the past either, more generally.
They were, for a long time, reserved for nobility, if even that.
Human rights theory requires that candidate rights must apply to all humans, and when applied they are inalienable.
Freedom from slavery works, with the implicit that nobody has a right to human property. You could also say everyone is a slave, but you'd have to posit a non-human master -- deity or corporation or something. Or everyone is a master, but there are no slaves -- which means little.
If someone preferred a system of slavery, you could say that slave/free is not a property for which humans rights apply. A softer system might say there is only a human right to the possibility of freedom, just as most consider that there is only a right to the possibility of owning private property, not to any particular property -- eg. you may be broke. Masters must only allow the particularly industrious to earn their way to freedom from slavery.>"Adaptability" in rights gets them violated.
If I understand the theory, rights can be violated. Which is not to mean they are actually violated, because rights are inalienable. But a person can force someone to act as a slave, and that will be termed a violation of rights -- correct?
>>11373>why not have "rights" like a job, money, paved roads, air conditioning, and so on?
Because the word "rights" implies that someone else has an obligation to respect them.
A "right" is an imposition on someone else, and any "right" that is lower on the priority list than the right to liberty (the freedom to make one's own decisions about their actions), isn't worth being a right at all.
You can say that you have the right to a job, but my right to decide not to hire you is higher on the priority list, so the right to a job might as well not exist.>If your rights aren't ridged they get violated.
That's why we have rights that allow us to protect our other rights. For example, the right to bare arms, which helps protect our rights of life and liberty from authorities which would seek to violate them, assuming we're willing to put in the effort to protect against such violations.
At the end of the day, the existence of rights themselves don't protect us. We need to take actions and put up practical safeguards that allows us to protect our rights. Rights are something you have to fight for, for yourself and for others.
That doesn't mean that they don't or shouldn't exist. It just means it takes effort to maintain them.
>>11412> Rights are something you have to fight for, for yourself and for others.
This, at least, is true. The rest, I'd strongly disagree with. But this portion is correct.
Ultimately; Rights are a moral justification.
The line to which we can resist, justly.
The whole purpose of them is to say "This is why I am fighting you."
This said; Inconsistent rules are not just.
Which is why rights must be absolute. Saying "Well, you don't have that right here" or "Well, that right is all well and good, but this right trumps it" just means you don't have rights.
You've simply created a system in which I can say "Well, my right to rule over you trumps your right to free speech". And there's nothing really to counter that, from an argument. Because the standard for rights has been corroded.
America is set to become either a Christian theocracy in which nobody has any human rights unless supposedly God supports them... or either a mega-corporate kind of super-state in which nobody has any human rights because big business controls everything, thus everything living or dead is some sort of property.
It would be nice if we could reverse that, but I don't know if we can.
In terms of abortion, human life in general isn't valued in America, which you can see given our sky-high rates of crime and homelessness among other debiliting problems, and so it's kind of a sick joke for the government to pretend as if it wants to care about innocents: this is about using state power to violently coerce people into obeying traditional right-wing Christian sexual morality against their will. Period. If you object to this framing, ask yourself why the exact same people who oppose abortion also oppose sex education, contraception, gay marriage, and more. And how if they actually cared about the sanctity of life they might lift a finger to help suffering children already born, especially those desperate to be adopted.
As for the Supreme Court, one of the ideal function of any court system at all is to stop an omnipotent federal government stamping its boot on a human face forever in the name of ending freedoms to create absolute social order. Courts are supposed to be a backstop against tyranny. That's very, very obviously stopped happening a long time ago. Hence why the federal government can straight up abduct people without trial and hold them in detention indefinitely in the name of national security. We're kind of doomed.
>>11414> ask yourself why the exact same people who oppose abortion also oppose sex education, contraception, gay marriage, and more.
This seems to be a sentence fragment.
Why do they also oppose all those things?
You've not demonstrated that everyone in favor of banning abortion does.
So, I suppose the answer would be "They aren't". Because of course there are many different people voting for different reasons in regards to this issue.
Presuming you could blanketly define them as one solid political stance seems a little deluded, frankly.
If we had the technology to take a fetus out of a women's body and keep it alive in some kind of machine, I may be more willing to have this type of conversation about abortion. But as of right now we do not have that technology, and therefore I think we are walking a very dangerous line of forcing women to keep another person alive by risking their own bodies and lives.
One could, technically, now make the argument that you can take someone's kidney or chunk of their liver, or whatever, to keep someone else alive.
This is only one problem out of many that I see with all of this.
This video explains some major medical reasons why this is dangerous and how some things count as abortions even though many people don't think they do.
The trouble i have inevitably with these arguments is, nobody seems to be pushing for it to be allowed only as a medical necessity.
It seems to be pointing to one small segment, and dictating for the whole.
As far as the liver angle, I'd say you may well have that obligation if you're the one responsible for the individual's lost liver.
It is true that there's some flaw in arguing for abortion only on the exotic cases of the pregnancy posing a danger to the mother.
But even outside those cases, it's worth to ask whether a woman should be forced to carry a baby if they are not in a good place to be a mother (too young, too old, having mental/physical disability / not able to provide a good environment for a kid /...)
heck, if they refuse the responsibility for taking care of the baby/kid, should they still be forced to bring a baby in the world?
It's not exotic, pregnancy IS dangerous. Of course we have better medical care now than we did in the past, but there are many complications and reasons why a women may decide to not become pregnant. But there's also those grey areas, that that video mentions, where what if the women goes into labor and the doctors know, KNOW, the child is not going to live outside of the womb. Can they abort? Maybe, but some doctors or nurses may hesitate for fear of getting sent to jail or prison, risking their own careers and lives. And then the mother dies as well.
Or all these people who are not able to get life changing, or saving, medications because those medications are capable of causing abortions.
There are too many grey areas, and no experts on the matter (doctors) seem to have been allowed to weigh in and provide more clear answers and solutions to those grey areas.