SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned

[Hades]

1) People stop looking to the courts to create laws they want rather than persuade the electorate of why their views should be law;

That line of thinking doesn't really work in the US though because the electorate doesn't decide any of those things.

The electorate could elect a center right liberal with decent enough social policies, only for the electoral college to intervene and force a far right extremist into office who can then use his ill gotten position to oppress trans people.

The electorate at large can support rights for minorities and vote accordingly , only for the Senate which is tied to states rather than to populations to just stonewall any bill that might right for minorities that the majority supports, because a fringe minority of conservatives is enough to secure a senate majority.

The electorate at large could despise the idea of a rapist and a religious fundamentalist getting put on the supreme court but its not them who decide that, its a president without support of the electorate and a senate without the support of the electorate who decide this. Nowhere in the process was it ever required to persuade the electorate. Every step in the process was meant to overrule the electorate.

2) Court appointments become a mundane matter again that few even notice;

That can't happen either because the Republicans have made it very clear that they will use court appointments as a means to terrorize a majority that's increasingly opposed to the ultra conservative values exposed by the Republican party. As such court appointments cannot be a mundane matter because the Republicans means for them to be a threat against their own population.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If you invented a device that protected you in the case of a car accident by murdering another driver, we would make it illegal without hesitation. It's also the core of self-driving AI.

It's called a Sport Utility Vehicle and they were very popular, as are lifts and cow catchers. Makes one specific vehicle *very* safe.

I don't like the term "pro-life", not cause I'm not but because almost everyone is for life, it's not a useful term. Limited to the discussion of abortion, "anti-choice" is actually a more honest descriptor, as that is how we legally treat homicide. If someone makes the choice for someone to die when nobody had to, that's illegal. If somebody dies not as the result of anyone choosing for it to happen, that's not illegal. Choice is very much the problem.

That's just obfuscating the choice enough until you're content to ignore it. It's a statistical fact that universal healthcare lowers the maternal mortality rate, among many other things, and you chose to not go with it.

I have lots of moral obligation, but we're talking about legal obligation.

Yes, we are. You want to legally obligate a certain specific group of people to become medical equipment on a moments notice, but have conveniently argued that you yourself are not beholden to that in a stunning display of hypocrisy,

And as far as your stupid meme, that's not "everything I don't like is communism". You're actually describing communism. "Why doesn't everyone have exactly equal responsibility to care for one another? Why are you stopping at personal responsibility based on traditional family structures?" Because I'm a conservative, not a communist.

Which "traditional family structure" for starters, and why is yours better than others. Following that up, helping your neighbors isn't communism. Helping your countrymen isn't communism. One could very easily argue that it's the core of patriotism to do so. Catholicism too, for that matter. Got whole parables based around that shit from the J man himself.

So no, it's very much the meme.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Catholicism too, for that matter. Got whole parables based around that shit from the J man himself.

There's no point in talking about Jesus to a member of a party that believes in "prosperity gospel".

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

***** did you forget you live in a democracy?

 

[Agema]

I'm sure you are not advocating for anarchy and lawlessness but I really don't think we have laws if it is simply whatever, without convincing anyone, a judge says it is. Jurisprudence often uses the historical use of a given law (trial outcomes) to frame its rationale.

When I say judges do what they want, I don't mean that it is totally whim. I think they work within constraints of what can be reasonably justified, but given how loose some law and concepts of precedent and interpretation are, that can allow a great deal of latitude.

A majority of people might accept Roe as they have been told to do so but people paying attention likely see it as "bad law". In my use of the term "bad law" I don't mean it's a decision I dislike, but that the reasoning behind it is not convincing. Having an unconvincing decision have such a huge impact on a given society is going to be trouble.

As stated, I think what makes a ruling a problem is more that it makes a firm stance on a particularly fraught subject, not how legally convincing it is.

 

[Trunkage]

***** did you forget you live in a democracy?

It's the very 1st amendment. But then, these justices were picked specifically because they don't understand the constitution

 

[tstorm823]

That's not communism. It's closer to the kibbutz system.

Not if you continue to follow the question "why stop there?" ad infinitum, as MysteriousGX is wont to do.

 

[tstorm823]

It's called a Sport Utility Vehicle and they were very popular, as are lifts and cow catchers. Makes one specific vehicle *very* safe.

And those sorts of alterations are regulated or banned in tons of places...

That's just obfuscating the choice enough until you're content to ignore it. It's a statistical fact that universal healthcare lowers the maternal mortality rate, among many other things, and you chose to not go with it.

I don't think you understand what statistics are.

Yes, we are. You want to legally obligate a certain specific group of people to become medical equipment on a moments notice, but have conveniently argued that you yourself are not beholden to that in a stunning display of hypocrisy,

The certain specific group of people is parents. It's not hypocrisy that I'm not legally responsible for other people's children in the same way that they are. This isn't me wanting to change things, that is already how the law behaves. You already live under the system you're trying to prevent with one singular exception that is abortion.

Which "traditional family structure" for starters, and why is yours better than others. Following that up, helping your neighbors isn't communism. Helping your countrymen isn't communism. One could very easily argue that it's the core of patriotism to do so. Catholicism too, for that matter. Got whole parables based around that shit from the J man himself.

1) The one with parents who have custody of children.
2) "Mine" is the same as basically everyone else's, including yours.
3) Helping people isn't communism. Having the law state that every person is legally responsible for every other person regardless of their relationship is not just "helping people".

You're really bad at this.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And those sorts of alterations are regulated or banned in tons of places...

Look, I know you think proof is a silly standard to have in arguments, but that doesn't mean you just get to lie

I don't think you understand what statistics are.

lmao

The certain specific group of people is parents. It's not hypocrisy that I'm not legally responsible for other people's children in the same way that they are. This isn't me wanting to change things, that is already how the law behaves. You already live under the system you're trying to prevent with one singular exception that is abortion.

Yes, because I would like to make it consistent, as it not being consistent is discriminatory against a subclass of people.

1) The one with parents who have custody of children.
2) "Mine" is the same as basically everyone else's, including yours.
3) Helping people isn't communism. Having the law state that every person is legally responsible for every other person regardless of their relationship is not just "helping people".
You're really bad at this.

My "traditional family structure" makes extensive use of aunt, uncles, grandparents, and family friends. It is most definitely not the same as yours, much as you pretend otherwise

You have this bizarre idea that it's murder to stop being medical equipment to save human life *if and only if* you have a direct blood connection that hasn't been legally severed. Exact same situation, but recently divorced or just happened to be in the area? It's no longer murder just because you could save somebody's life and choose not to, somehow. But fuck that rape victim

The idea that the government can strap somebody down and forced a birth because "save the children", but then turn around and have zero responsibility for that child that they are specifically responsible for is the core hypocrisy

 

[Dreiko]

I think arguing about whether or not it's murder is kinda silly at this point but since I've seen it pop up here and there I'll reiterate my position which will displease both sides hence is the correct one.

So, I think babies are life when in the belly too, but I also think abortion is fine. Killing babies is murder but allowable murder like the death penalty because it protects something more valuable, which we as a society have been ok with doing time and time again, so while it shouldn't be illegal or prosecuted it should carry with it the same mental burden that accidentally running over a dog or something does. Being callous and treating it as just part of your body makes just as much sense as mandating girls to be pregnant if they got raped at a young age by a family member.


I think most of the conflict comes from trying to minimize the moral implications of abortion, if we accept that women need absorb this moral evil to protect their futures and quality of lives then I don't think there will be as much opposition. But if we pretend it's literally the same as getting a haircut and nobody gets to say anything about it, then yeah of course people will balk at the idea.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think most of the conflict comes from trying to minimize the moral implications of abortion, if we accept that women need absorb this moral evil to protect their futures and quality of lives then I don't think there will be as much opposition. But if we pretend it's literally the same as getting a haircut and nobody gets to say anything about it, then yeah of course people will balk at the idea.

No it won't.

You really think if we all collectively agreed that abortions are evil, but that women need to get them for their future that the pro-life side will just not try to ban it anymore? This has never been about pro-lifers wanting to be respected for their opinion, they never sought that, this is about them wanting abortions banned because they know they're right in thinking it's murder. These people will never be appeased by anything less than a complete ban on abortions. That's like saying opponents of gay marriage only want people to admit that two men together is evil, and then they'll stop trying to get gay marriage abolished.

Abortions aren't immoral, and neither is two men getting married. The worst thing we as a society could do is give these beliefs any sort of credit. It's just more regressivism.

 

[Kwak]

which will displease both sides hence is the correct one.

Is this a formal law of logic?

 

[Hades]

***** did you forget you live in a democracy?

I think its funny since a conservative fringe minority has been bullying the rest of the US so they'd get their preferred outcome.

 

[Agema]

I think its funny since a conservative fringe minority has been bullying the rest of the US so they'd get their preferred outcome.

As a general rule, I don't think people who sit on one of the three highest government institutions in the land get to complain about "bullying" much.

I think there needs to be a certain amount of respect for them doing their job without improper interference, but they also need to be accountable: and if they are going to make decisions likely to cause a great deal of anger (and as is shortly going to happen, human suffering), they need to suck that public anger up with good grace, not pompously act like they should be above criticism.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's the very 1st amendment. But then, these justices were picked specifically because they don't understand the constitution

 

[Silvanus]

Not if you continue to follow the question "why stop there?" ad infinitum, as MysteriousGX is wont to do.

Uhrm right, ok. But it's not communism.

 

[tstorm823]

Uhrm right, ok. But it's not communism.

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?

Look, I know you think proof is a silly standard to have in arguments, but that doesn't mean you just get to lie

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

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

Yes, because I would like to make it consistent, as it not being consistent is discriminatory against a subclass of people.

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

My "traditional family structure" makes extensive use of aunt, uncles, grandparents, and family friends. It is most definitely not the same as yours, much as you pretend otherwise

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.

The idea that the government can strap somebody down and forced a birth because "save the children", but then turn around and have zero responsibility for that child that they are specifically responsible for is the core hypocrisy

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".

 

[Seanchaidh]

1) The one with parents who have custody of children.

Apart from their handling of orphans, for whom that is literally impossible, the Soviet Union maintained that family structure from inception to dissolution.

It is. Because if you're rejecting individuals having specific rights or obligations, you're erasing social classes.

This is a very non-Marxist view of what constitutes a social class, so... no.

 

[Trunkage]

Apart from their handling of orphans, for whom that is literally impossible, the Soviet Union maintained that family structure from inception to dissolution.

One of the reasons why you can tell Jordan Peterson is lying about Marxist Post-Modernists is that
Marxists are usually interested in keeping family structures, they just dont care about forcing women to do all the housework like a US 'capitalist."
Post-Modern question everything, including if the current view of family structures are useful

This is a very non-Marxist view of what constitutes a social class, so... no.

I would have said tstorm is reading from some sort of caste system. If one social class means that you get different rights than other classes... well, that sounds incredibly unWestern

 

[Dreiko]

No it won't.

You really think if we all collectively agreed that abortions are evil, but that women need to get them for their future that the pro-life side will just not try to ban it anymore? This has never been about pro-lifers wanting to be respected for their opinion, they never sought that, this is about them wanting abortions banned because they know they're right in thinking it's murder. These people will never be appeased by anything less than a complete ban on abortions. That's like saying opponents of gay marriage only want people to admit that two men together is evil, and then they'll stop trying to get gay marriage abolished.

Abortions aren't immoral, and neither is two men getting married. The worst thing we as a society could do is give these beliefs any sort of credit. It's just more regressivism.

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. If it's clear that people aren't being casual about it but are actually properly weighed down by their decision then that will engender at least some empathy in some.


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 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.


Gay marriage has nothing with any of this btw. It's not like one of the grooms will die if they are single.

Is this a formal law of logic?

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