SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned

[Agema]

Marxists are usually interested in keeping family structures

I'm not aware that family structure is really part of Marxist dogma at all.

Marxists have criticised the "nuclear family" construct on a number of bases, none of which are fundamentally opposed to the idea of two parents bringing up their biological children. The major issue is more that the family unit can be used to convey forms of privilege (e.g. inheritance of wealth), and that it has been manipulated by capitalism via notions of competition and consumption beneficial to the capitalist class rather than themselves.

 

[Agema]

The issue here is that some people think that there's folks out there who treat abortions casually and don't think any more of it than they would of getting a haircut.

All three of the people who have abortions like haircuts

 

[Silvanus]

It is. Because if you're rejecting individuals having specific rights or obligations, you're erasing social classes. And if you keep asking "why stop there", you end up asking why even stop at political borders, and then you're erasing states. And then you have a classless, stateless society. Do you really not see how "if one person has to do something, than everyone has to do it!" is the logic of communism?

Why would you just keep asking "why stop there"?

Conservatives want to conserve some stuff the way it is... but "if you keep asking 'why stop there'", you end up with no progress of any kind! So That's what conservatives want! Libertarians want people to have greater individual liberty.... but "if you keep asking 'why stop there'", you end up with people being allowed to murder and thieve! So that's what libertarians want!

 

[Casual Shinji]

Basically the issue that galvanizes people is that there is this perception of abortion-havers as being callous and frivolous about the life of their babies, and that's a valid thing to disprove.

And nothing will change that perception. The very concept of abortion is evil to people who are pro-life, so there's no common ground to find here. Maybe if they actually read up on abortion, talk to doctors, and people who have had abortions they could change this perception. But if that was a common occurance we wouldn't be in this situation right now where people's rights are about to be stripped away.

And I don't know about you but the moral and selfless thing in this situation would be to sacrifice yourself in some way for the sake of the baby which did nothing wrong. If you see someone be selfless like that in their life, then all other options will feel immoral to you. I don't think it's crazy to see it this way and if you can't understand why someone feels that way you may have not had the opportunity to appreciate someone like that.

What baby?

It's not about selflessness with these people. If it were they'd be consistent with it, and they're not. It's about sanctifying conception, birth, and women being mothers. And going against that, or worse, stopping it from happening is blasphemy. Just as gay marriage is in their eyes an attack on the sanctity of marriage. That's the problem with all three major religions; the protection of "sanctity" at the expense of human life.

 

[thebobmaster]

Is this a formal law of logic?

Interestingly enough, it's actually closer to something called the argument to moderation, or Golden Mean Fallacy.

 

[Buyetyen]

Yep, you know if neither side of an argument is perfectly happy with your suggestion you've struck a reasonable middle-ground.

And whose ass did you pull that out of?

 

[Bedinsis]

Interestingly enough, it's actually closer to something called the argument to moderation, or Golden Mean Fallacy.

In other words, it is not a formal law of logic, it is a normal flaw in logic.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Funny thing, you not knowing something doesn't make it a lie.

https://superlift.com/lift-kit-laws-by-state

*Posts a link showing zero states have banned lifts or cow catchers*

You understand to use your concepts of "consistent" and "discriminatory" would require erasing all the laws relative to parents and custody, correct?

Nope. Would just make people go in for blood transfusions and organ donations as necessary.

You just described my family, dummy. Your extended family being a big part of your life has no bearing on the fact that someone, usually parents, specifically has custody and is legally required to care for the child. The amount my grandparents, aunt, uncles, siblings, cousins, and others did for me doesn't mean they were legally required to.

Correct. And I would like to keep it that way, with zero members of your family legally required to make permanent alterations of their body for some hypothetical new member

Because that's rhetorical nonsense meant to make it seem inconsistent. You are dodging the principle on purpose. "You are responsible for keeping that fetus alive" is perfectly consistent with "and now you are responsible for keeping that child alive".

"But never me, get your own tax money moocher"

If the state is going to force somebody to stay pregnant and give birth, then the state is directly responsible for that birth and has to take responsibility. That's the line, right? If we're holding 12 year old rape victims to that standard, the US government can probably handle it too, yeah?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

White-supremacist pseudo-Christian theocracy, here we come!

 

[Buyetyen]

Government so small it can fit in your bedroom.

 

[Agema]

snip

To be fair, I don't think Tennessee has banned IUDs and morning after pills just yet. It's a trigger law set to take effect 30 days after Roe v. Wade is canned, but the official vote and ruling to scrap Roe v. Wade is yet to emerge. I think the ruling will be made in June, so the ban on IUDs and the morning after pill will apply in July.

 

[Dreiko]

And nothing will change that perception. The very concept of abortion is evil to people who are pro-life, so there's no common ground to find here. Maybe if they actually read up on abortion, talk to doctors, and people who have had abortions they could change this perception. But if that was a common occurance we wouldn't be in this situation right now where people's rights are about to be stripped away.

What baby?

It's not about selflessness with these people. If it were they'd be consistent with it, and they're not. It's about sanctifying conception, birth, and women being mothers. And going against that, or worse, stopping it from happening is blasphemy. Just as gay marriage is in their eyes an attack on the sanctity of marriage. That's the problem with all three major religions; the protection of "sanctity" at the expense of human life.

It's not about changing the perception of those who already think that way but rather preventing more people from coming to think that way in the future.


And I genuinely don't think religion is as crucial as you're giving it credit for here. It's more that this is a human instinct that predates religion, and it's so central to our being that it finds its way in all of the big religions too. It's part of human nature to sanctify mothers since everyone has an internalized comprehension of being someone's baby at one point in their life.

 

[Buyetyen]

And I genuinely don't think religion is as crucial as you're giving it credit for here. It's more that this is a human instinct that predates religion, and it's so central to our being that it finds its way in all of the big religions too. It's part of human nature to sanctify mothers since everyone has an internalized comprehension of being someone's baby at one point in their life.

Historically, abortion bans are actually a relatively recent invention. The pro-life movement as we know it today was started by Jerry Falwell and the self-proclaimed Moral Majority. And it's not really about sanctity, it's about power.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The *fuck* this isn't about abortion. If you're looking for extremely dodgy decisions causing damage each and every day, Citizen's United is right fucking there. This is 100% about abortion and I'm mildly insulted you're bothering to pretend otherwise.

The precedent *this* law set was good. 50 years worth. Do you honestly expect me to believe that the only reason you wanted Roe reversed, and things like Oberfell put in danger, was because the law was kinda shaky and you're just such a stickler for rules? Three conservative justices lied under oath and pretended it was settled law. ( I mean, I never believed them, but still)


Yeah, see: It's the last bit that's important, and that's the bit Alito's blowing up. Are you, Mr anti-mandate, really arguing that the government should be allowed to insert itself into important personal decisions? A vaccine is a bridge too far, but 9 months of hormone baths, irreversable changes, pain, injury, and potential death to be an incubator for somebody you don't even want there is fine?

It's a question of law, not of policy. The Supreme Court isn't the "moral court". The question is whether the argument made in Roe v Wade was solid to show the constitutionality of the right to abortion. Even RBG said it was argued poorly. Then the next question is whether abortion is guaranteed in the constitution or not via a different argument (that would have to be re-argued), it's not whether abortion should be a right or not. It's not putting these other things in danger as you claim it is as abortion is a very unique thing in regards to a law argument.

I argue against the mandates based on the fact it's bad policy, not bad law as I'm no legal expert. I get the gist of most legal concepts and I called out the mandate as illegal because the fact that Biden tried backdooring it through OSHA meant there probably isn't precedent for a vaccine mandate or else they just would've used that obviously.

You were meant to provide something to support the idea that minorities have greater opportunities in Republican states. This appears to be an unrelated link about median house prices.

You all say there's systemic racism (which I agree there is) meaning that minorities have an economic disadvantage in generational wealth meaning they have less money to buy a home or buy/rent a business. Thus, places with lower home prices give minorities more economic opportunities.

These sections are found in pages 11 - 25.

Yet, you didn't copy and paste the following section. These other rights you say are at risk are "fundamentally different" and IMO iron clad.

The right to abortion docs not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of “liberty.” Roe's defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being".

Since the answer to my question was not an unambiguous, "No," that means yes, you agree with Alito that there is no constitutional right to privacy. The rest is just so much sophistry, like I've come to expect from you.

Since when can doctors and patients agree to do literally any procedure they want because it's "private"? That's why assisted suicide is not some guaranteed right. And from the quote from the draft right above, why are any other rights at jeopardy?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's a question of law, not of policy. The Supreme Court isn't the "moral court". The question is whether the argument made in Roe v Wade was solid to show the constitutionality of the right to abortion. Even RBG said it was argued poorly. Then the next question is whether abortion is guaranteed in the constitution or not via a different argument (that would have to be re-argued), it's not whether abortion should be a right or not. It's not putting these other things in danger as you claim it is as abortion is a very unique thing in regards to a law argument.

"RGB said it was argued poorly, so I'm going to use her as an argument while coming to the complete opposite conclusion"

And it specifically puts those other things in danger based on the reasoning on why Roe is invalid, and you can tell based on ALL OF THE EXAMPLES OF TRIGGER LAWS CAUSING BIRTH CONTROL TO BE ILLEGAL. Pay attention for once in your goddamned life. What, is every legal scholar, INCLUDING THE CHEERING CONSERVATIVE ONES, just not as smart as you?

 

[tstorm823]

Why would you just keep asking "why stop there"?

Because that's what MysteriousGX is doing. The argument being presented was if a parent could be required to donate blood to a child, why isn't literally everyone required to do that? GX "would make people go in for blood transfusions and organ donations as necessary."

 

[tstorm823]

And it specifically puts those other things in danger based on the reasoning on why Roe is invalid, and you can tell based on ALL OF THE EXAMPLES OF TRIGGER LAWS CAUSING BIRTH CONTROL TO BE ILLEGAL. Pay attention for once in your goddamned life. What, is every legal scholar, INCLUDING THE CHEERING CONSERVATIVE ONES, just not as smart as you?

All these words and you've made no argument. You're just yelling aimlessly.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Because that's what MysteriousGX is doing. The argument being presented was if a parent could be required to donate blood to a child, why isn't literally everyone required to do that? GX "would make people go in for blood transfusions and organ donations as necessary."

My argument is that nobody should be legally required to, your argument is that it is *legally murder* if specific people don't, but perfectly okay if others don't, despite the outcome being the same.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

All these words and you've made no argument. You're just yelling aimlessly.

Already provided examples my dude, blow it out your ass