Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[AUDub 11,136]

52 minutes ago, Didba said:

What enumerated right is marriage based upon? 14th amendment?  I was under the impression that the privacy rights e.g. procreation, contraception, marriage, abortion, all stemmed from the same "penumbra of rights" which is a not enumerated right. 

Not saying you are wrong just curious on this one because I may be misremembering.

you've got it right. 

[AU9377 4,918]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

What enumerated right is marriage based upon? 14th amendment?  I was under the impression that the privacy rights e.g. procreation, contraception, marriage, abortion, all stemmed from the same "penumbra of rights" which is a not enumerated right. 

Not saying you are wrong just curious on this one because I may be misremembering.

I'm not certain what you mean by wrong?  I didn't claim that marriage was an enumerated right.

Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. Fundamental rights are not all enumerated in the constitution.  They are rights that the court has concluded are either explicitly or implicitly expressed in the constitution and therefore laws impacting those rights are subject to strict scrutiny.

Edited June 25, 2022 by AU9377

[AU9377 4,918]

2 hours ago, Didba said:

Actually, I was thinking while I do like poking hole in bad arguments, the real reason I come on here [and I almost never come into the political forum] is because if I can even get one person to consider revising their beliefs to be a bit less extreme. If I can just reach one person and make them reconsider some things then its worth the animosity I receive from the ones that are simply too far gone to reach.

That is an admirable goal, but I can attest that it is unlikely that you will ever see a closed mind open.  The more likely benefit is to someone that is simply reading the boards that needs to hear both points of view.

[TexasTiger 12,826]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I kinda implied what I’d do when I said that if I’d been in his position and had a guarantee that today would be the result, I wouldn’t have stonewalled Garland. And by refusing to vote Trump and encouraging others not to as well I was risking not getting other justices as well. 

It would be harder having seen today I’ll admit. And you’ve upped the ante by saying it likely wouldn’t happen for decades. I don’t know what the implications of playing God by going back in time to reverse decisions like that are. The butterfly effect of such things scares me. But suffice it to say, I stand by my original contention:  as the Scriptures say, you cannot do wrong that good may come of it. 

We don’t know what positives may have somehow flowed from this, but the negatives are obvious. The Court is seen as hyperpoliticized beyond repair. I’d say the risk of undoing that would be worth it.

[TexasTiger 12,826]

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

2 hours ago, Didba said:

No I am not a parent, my wife and I have chosen not to have children.  Not that you need to know that personal information but there ya go.

If I had a daughter I would tell her that she would never be at fault for being raped. Ever. It's that simple.  "I wouldn't have raped her your honor if she wasn't so pretty or wearing XYZ clothing" doesn't hold up in court as a defense to rape. 

I would educate her on safe environments, to be aware of her surroundings, to be aware of how sexual predators act, what situations sexual predators tend to exploit and how to quickly use the mace canister I gave (give? since its a hypo, I dunno) her just as I taught my wife.

The question I answered had nothing to do with rape.  I’m sorry you misinterpreted either the question or my response.

[I_M4_AU 7,783]

2 hours ago, Didba said:

Further, I have already stated your argument about going to another state is in such bad faith, disingenuous, and places such a high burden on someone who is a victim and had no choice in being pregnant

Please tell me what other choice does this woman have if she lives in a state that doesn’t allow abortions for someone that is raped?  Do you have an answer?

[GoAU 1,599]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Wait 20 years to seewhat that combination does for crime, for violence, for government spending.

Remember how crime mysteriously went down in the 1990s?

Flooding the country with guns and unwanted children will be destructive beyond current imagination.

Crime & violence?   Kind of like the impacts of not prosecuting criminals, letting the criminals out of prison early, and legalizing drugs?  

 

 

5 hours ago, Didba said:

The amount of you that think forcing your religious beliefs onto others in a secular nation is okay, fine and dandy is absolutely disgusting.

The separation of church and state and the establishment clause exist for a reason to produce a secular nation and without them its a slippery slope to a theocratic government such as the Emirates.

I don’t think someone has to be religious to disagree with the concept of killing an unborn child.   I can certainly see how a religious person would feel that way, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to think non religious people could think this is immoral as well.  

3 hours ago, Didba said:

You do understand though that Republicans push Christian ideological beliefs into law because it keeps them in power as politicians?  This is what we mean when we say religious beliefs are being forced upon others by the minority. Both Christians and Republicans are a minority in this country. Pro-life is almost exclusively a religious belief no matter the religion and establishing religious beliefs as law is enforcing those beliefs onto others.

The same could be said of communist / socialist / atheist views being pushed by the left.  Killing people is against the 10 Commandments, but I assume you aren’t against murder laws?  The same is true for theft?   Morality is still morality.  

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

  Now the far right will figure out the next method by which they want government to involve itself in your life.  They seem to favor the government involvement when it elevates their own self worth, but not when it actually benefits someone less fortunate than themselves.

The right pushes for less government involvement, not more.  Pushing abortion out of the federal governments arena to a states right issue is not giving the government more power.  

[Didba 5,256]

57 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I'm not certain what you mean by wrong?  I didn't claim that marriage was an enumerated right.

Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. Fundamental rights are not all enumerated in the constitution.  They are rights that the court has concluded are either explicitly or implicitly expressed in the constitution and therefore laws impacting those rights are subject to strict scrutiny.

LOL. Yeah, man, we are on the same page, I know all all that stuff in your second paragraph, bar exam looming... I thought you claimed marriage was an enumerated right.  Misread your statement.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

52 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

That is an admirable goal, but I can attest that it is unlikely that you will ever see a closed mind open.  The more likely benefit is to someone that is simply reading the boards that needs to hear both points of view.

I have managed to change people's minds before who had a basic misunderstanding of like free speech rights so it's possible they just have to be willing to accept their misunderstanding and not get upset when you explain how it actually is.

[Didba 5,256]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Please tell me what other choice does this woman have if she lives in a state that doesn’t allow abortions for someone that is raped?  Do you have an answer?

Yeah, here ya go, she can get an abortion pill sent to her by a non-profit and be at risk of prison time for murder because she aborted a rapist's child.  Still a terrible solution.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

7 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Crime & violence?   Kind of like the impacts of not prosecuting criminals, letting the criminals out of prison early, and legalizing drugs?  

Disingenuous straw-man.

I don’t think someone has to be religious to disagree with the concept of killing an unborn child.   I can certainly see how a religious person would feel that way, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to think non religious people could think this is immoral as well.  

Its pretty easy to disprove this, vast majority of non-religious people in America are pro-choice because they don't see it as murder and place a higher weight on a woman's right to privacy/bodily autonomy over an undeveloped fetus.

The same could be said of communist / socialist / atheist views being pushed by the left.  Killing people is against the 10 Commandments, but I assume you aren’t against murder laws?  The same is true for theft?   Morality is still morality.  

This is a major straw-man here, like textbook definition of a straw-man argument. Severe disingenuous argument made in bad faith.

The right pushes for less government involvement, not more.  Pushing abortion out of the federal governments arena to a states right issue is not giving the government more power.  

So more government involvement in citizen's lives restricting people's rights by state governments is what libertarians have meant by "small government" all these years? State government or federal government its still the government gaining more power to restrict citizens rights, which is inherently more government involvement.

So much bad faith/straw-men arguments to unpack here.  Just an FYI for everyone:

A "straw man fallacy" occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.  As such, the straw-man fallacy is considered to be a type of an informal logical fallacy, and specifically a type of a relevance fallacy, since the person using it is attacking a stance that is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

A “bad faith” discussion is doomed to fail, as one or both person’s rights, dignity, and autonomy are not respected.

A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person’s dignity, follow generally accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say.

[aubaseball 2,588]

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Please tell me what other choice does this woman have if she lives in a state that doesn’t allow abortions for someone that is raped?  Do you have an answer?

How about the morning after pill? If she goes to the hospital to report the rape, I’m sure they would give her that if asked.  

[TexasTiger 12,826]

9 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

How about the morning after pill? If she goes to the hospital to report the rape, I’m sure they would give her that if asked.  

That’s abortion.

[GoAU 1,599]

19 minutes ago, Didba said:

So much bad faith/straw-men arguments to unpack here.  Just an FYI for everyone:

A "straw man fallacy" occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.  As such, the straw-man fallacy is considered to be a type of an informal logical fallacy, and specifically a type of a relevance fallacy, since the person using it is attacking a stance that is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

A “bad faith” discussion is doomed to fail, as one or both person’s rights, dignity, and autonomy are not respected.

A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person’s dignity, follow generally accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say.

That’s laughable.   You ascertain that a long term increase in crime and violence would be more due to abortion becoming a states rights issue than the criminal negligence of numerous DAs and liberal states?  And my argument is the straw man?   LOL

[aubaseball 2,588]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s abortion.

Don’t think so.   Not even the same.  That’s just not using common sense.   

[AUDub 11,136]

1 minute ago, aubaseball said:

Don’t think so.   Not even the same.  That’s just not using common sense.   

Seen what some states are pushing?

[W.E.D 11,070]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I will tell you that the SCOTUS knows more than you or I about Constitutional law and their decision is more learned than your freshly minted law degree.

You do like to throw up that law degree don’t you.  I hope you learn to be less emotional.

I'm sure you would spout this BS if the court went the other way

[GoAU 1,599]

Since it is clear that abortion is not an enumerated constitutional right, it is absolutely a state issue.  The courts decision today is absolutely not a ban on abortion, it just corrects a mistake made by the court in the past.   The purpose of the court is not to legislate or grant new  “rights”.

[TexasTiger 12,826]

12 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Don’t think so.   Not even the same.  That’s just not using common sense.   

Exactly 

[shabby 1,956]

I'm certainly not an expert on the criteria for the senate to pass legislation through reconciliation but it has me wondering. Codifiying the right to abortion would certainly have an economic impact allowing women to continue in the workforce. Icould abortion rights be codified through the reconciliation process?

[TexasTiger 12,826]

1 minute ago, shabby said:

I'm certainly not an expert on the criteria for the senate to pass legislation through reconciliation but it has me wondering. Codifiying the right to abortion would certainly have an economic impact allowing women to continue in the workforce. Icould abortion rights be codified through the reconciliation process?

Unlikely 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

51 minutes ago, GoAU said:

That’s laughable.   You ascertain that a long term increase in crime and violence would be more due to abortion becoming a states rights issue than the criminal negligence of numerous DAs and liberal states?  And my argument is the straw man?   LOL

Then you would be wrong.  Go back and look at the inexplicable drop in crime in the 90s.  It was ultimately explained by Roe v. Wade. 

Unwanted, unloved, neglected children growing up in an environment without sufficient social safety nets, AND flooded with guns will produce a violent society.

Why is your solution always more prisons, more guns?  Have you no compassion or empathy?

No need to answer.  That was rhetorical.  Anyone who would be proud of "US Army Rangers - Chlorine for the world's gene pool" obviously lacks a sense of humanity.

[GoAU 1,599]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Then you would be wrong.  Go back and look at the inexplicable drop in crime in the 90s.  It was ultimately explained by Roe v. Wade. 

Unwanted, unloved, neglected children growing up in an environment without sufficient social safety nets, AND flooded with guns will produce a violent society.

Why is your solution always more prisons, more guns?  Have you no compassion or empathy?

No need to answer.  That was rhetorical.  Anyone who would be proud of "US Army Rangers - Chlorine for the world's gene pool" obviously lacks a sense of humanity.

Funny how you say a crime drop in the 90s I’m inexplicable, and then proceed to try and explain it.  
 

A part of my “solution” is individual accountability for individual choices.  No one is forcing people to make a decision to violate laws.  Failing to hold people accountable only encourages more broken laws.  It’s silly that you refuse to understand that.  
 

You can continue to try to criticize me for being proud of my service to our country and humanity in general. I have no problem with that at all.   It takes people willing to take out the trash to provide you an environment where you can whine and moan in safety.  

[AU9377 4,918]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Crime & violence?   Kind of like the impacts of not prosecuting criminals, letting the criminals out of prison early, and legalizing drugs?  

 

 

I don’t think someone has to be religious to disagree with the concept of killing an unborn child.   I can certainly see how a religious person would feel that way, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to think non religious people could think this is immoral as well.  

The same could be said of communist / socialist / atheist views being pushed by the left.  Killing people is against the 10 Commandments, but I assume you aren’t against murder laws?  The same is true for theft?   Morality is still morality.  

The right pushes for less government involvement, not more.  Pushing abortion out of the federal governments arena to a states right issue is not giving the government more power.  

The decision in Roe didn't sanction the killing of a person. When a woman has a miscarriage at 12 weeks, there is no funeral due to the fact that there is no person.  The viability test was devised to establish a point at which the mother's right to privacy must be balanced with a viable life. 

Is an unfertilized egg a person waiting to develop?  Is preventing that egg from being fertilized against the will of God?  Many believe that it is and would ban contraceptives if they thought women would sit quietly and allow them to do so.  I personally wouldn't choose abortion, but that doesn't mean that I think that a woman should lose control over her body the moment she becomes pregnant. 

The thing about morality is that it changes over time.  Adultery was a crime that one could be punished for at one time.  The accumulation of wealth is as immoral and sinful as any other act according to biblical teachings, yet we have chosen to ignore that one completely.  Legislating morality is not a sign of a healthy free society.