Now sit on the other side of the table.
“Killing a life for any reason is causing harm and wrong. So ‘your’ law about allowing people to do that is unjust and I could never support it.”
|
|
|
American Taliban
- Thread starter jc100
- Start date
Now sit on the other side of the table.
“Killing a life for any reason is causing harm and wrong. So ‘your’ law about allowing people to do that is unjust and I could never support it.”
You are deluded. Answer me truthfully. Do you think that the 3 most recent judges (who were picked specifically for their desire to change Roe v Wade) lied when they were picked about Roe being settled law? Less than 20% of US citizens want the right to an abortion to become illegal.....those people are the ones who picked the judges. Don't pretend that they are sober judges of the constitution. They are zealots placed on the court specifically for the result you see here today. So that 20% took the right to a safe abortion away from 100% of the population. When the same judges take contraceptives away from people and the right to gay marriage using the same logic that it isn't guaranteed by the consituation that will be the the same 20 getting what they want through 6 catholic judges.
Stop making arguments that make sense.
I have a hard time with this ruling. What is the basis for this train of thought?
The best I can come up with is Catholic dogma. Catholicism is the largest identifiable religious "sect" in American, about 22%.
... and as far as I can see the reason it is part of Catholic dogma (abortion is NOT a sin according to the bible [actually there is abortion instructions in the bible], or the Koran or the Halakhah) is if you abort a child, the Catholic church loses that child's tithe.
... or it's about unmitigated power over the people
I'm gonna go with the unmitigated power thing... sooooooo.... to what end?
The best I can come up with is Catholic dogma. Catholicism is the largest identifiable religious "sect" in American, about 22%.
... and as far as I can see the reason it is part of Catholic dogma (abortion is NOT a sin according to the bible [actually there is abortion instructions in the bible], or the Koran or the Halakhah) is if you abort a child, the Catholic church loses that child's tithe.
... or it's about unmitigated power over the people
I'm gonna go with the unmitigated power thing... sooooooo.... to what end?
So you're saying von Stauffenberg was 100% absolutely wrong sliding a briefcase bomb under the conference room table.
TL DR: Least harm to most people.
I find these conversations uncomfortable because I grew up Catholic, what I learned and believe is difficult to reconcile with what I see. I didn't grow up in Canada, but where I did, abortion was frowned upon, and so was letting a family struggle. My great grandmother would cook meals for folks in our community that lost work or had the breadwinner pass on. I was raised to believe that you only get what you give back. That's not happening here, a lot of the places opposed to abortion also have pretty poor childcare and low income assistance.
The final judgement is not mine to make. If someone chooses to get an abortion because the child was conceived out of assault, or they believe their living conditions will not give this child a shot at a good life, who am I to say what they should do. My faith is my own.
If someone were to say that a fetus is not alive, or has no consciousness untill a certain point, what then? For all we know, that statement is true. Who are we to decide what work is the hand of God, and what isn't.
This is why absolute laws and absolute opinions don't work. You hit the nail on the head: What about the other side?
The laws you think you're talking about are civil... and it's private citizens suing private citizens, not involving the state.
Texas can't prosecute someone for something they did in another state.
Interstate travel is a constitutionally protected right...
Unrelated, but if any of us poor sobs are out on the 401 today, we're all losers in this game.
The feds and individual states.. and a lot of others... are going to argue about that.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Laws are a bit fluid, they are interpret thru the lens of the day. SCOTUS is not immune from erring so they are able to correct themselves. For SCOTUS it is purely a cold legal ruling, morality is not their charter, that belongs to each state and is settled by elected representatives.
As far as party lines voting, I would guess it would follow historical voting, blue side wading slightly out of bounds into law making, red deciding coldly without empathy on legal principles.
Remember the original decision fell along partisan lines and was ruled on grounds that were known to be shaky.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
You are correct, the impact will need years to assess and sort out - that responsibility lies with lawmakers, not Scotus.
Consequences are hard to quantify at this time. Im no expert on the subject but I suspect day-after pill and the medication type prescriptions will become widely and easily available.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
My thoughts are the judges assessed the constutional ground thar R v W was standing on, they determined there was no guarantees under the constitution, and that equating right to freedom did not confer a personal right to abortion and therefor was a stretch out of bounds by the court of the day. Even liberal judge RGB was critical of the grounds used in justification of R v W and worried tgat it may not stand up to a review.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
What is the point of appeal? The law actually moves all the time in both liberal and conservative directions.
Fundamental to democracy are some inalienable rights, and the right to have the public determine laws through electided representation where no specific rights exist.
Lawmakers are free to enshrine rights as they see fit and probably are to name gir not addressing thus already. Nobody seems to have the political apetite to tackle abortion or guns, thru a constutional amendment.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
That's a red herring argument. Taliban has zero chance of being elected anywhere. A reasonable argument might be "if the govt forced me to change my restaurant menu to French only..."
At the core of this argument is protected rights, what is and what isn't. In Canada and the US there is no specific right to choose, your elected officials decide that for you. In Canada tge feds make those laws, in the US its done at the state level. Under the US Constitution, that is in the domain of individual states.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Did you pull those numbers out of your ass? Go read some to get credible numbers then continue to read and understand the federal and each state's role in this issue.
The above post reminds me of the rantings from that antivax RV rolling around toronto last year.
If we looked at the second amendment using the lens of the day then things would look a bit different. This isn’t just a cold legal decision taken in a vacuum, this has been a long patient plan of a severe faction mainly comprised of one party. The US should have codified this years ago though.
Here’s what the silver linings are. This is 50 years on. The voter base is turning and the old guard are dying off. It’s left wing slanted from here on out if there’s no gerrymandering or voter suppression. That’s a big if though. Young voters are connected and media savvy. The religious fundamentalists can cling onto this as today’s victory but it’s pyrrhic. I think this is what galvanizes voter bases to tell the McConnells of the world to go get ******.
When was the last time they corrected themselves?
I think you're going to see an exponential increase in the women's vote numbers in the USA's future. Never underestimate a woman scorned.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Friday.
lol. Ok. You know what I mean Mike. This particular decision can’t be taken as an isolated academic legal case. Whatever happens next the US is in for some very uncomfortable moments.
|
|
|
|
|