4 ms·

Cool, if they were alive. But also entirely moot: Abortion is a woman's right, guaranteed by the constitution, so your opinion isn't relevant. Also not relevan

by olliej 5y ago

Cool, if they were alive. But also entirely moot: Abortion is a woman's right, guaranteed by the constitution, so your opinion isn't relevant. Also not relevant to what I said: This is paying for travel for all medical procedures, obsessing over one that you don't like - solution: don't have one - is kind of pointless.

ryan93 5y ago
Link to the section of the constitution that guarantees it?
- runamok 5y ago
  Here we go... Not a constitutional scholar but I could roughly extend the 13th and 19th amendment to cover this. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs. To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.
  - s__s 5y ago
    The twin analogy is extremely weak. In this case the twin’s unfortunate circumstance is no fault of your own. You didn’t actively make any decision to put them in their situation of urgently needing you to survive. You need to alter your analogy such that you made some conscious decision that you knew could injure your twin brother, rendering him in need of one of your kidneys to live. At that point you have to show why it’s moral for you to withhold the organ donation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jimmygrapes 5y ago
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....” - Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion This is gonna be fun.
- olliej 5y ago
  Yup, a rapist, and a “judge” who’s repeatedly stated the Bible takes precedence over the constitution. Pretty on brand for them to come in targeting specific legislation.
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    I generally don't keep track of responses to my comments because it can end up with bickering, but I made an exception for now because of how proliferate and egregiously ridiculous your posts are. That said, I wish to let you know that you desperately need to disconnect from whatever bubbles you're in, take a breath, and get back to reality. I haven't flagged you yet because I prefer honest and informed dialog, but you don't seem to be interested in those topics so I may have to adjust my take. For now, I'll just say: this isn't reddit.
    - olliej 5y ago
      I also appreciate honest dialog, like the fact that every single survey has found that the majority of americans support women's rights. That a sitting member of the Supreme Court has a very plausible rape accusation that has been ignored, the another member of the Supreme Court has a track record of sexist treatment and harassment of court staff, and that one has written at length about how she would at best recuse herself if the law ever disagreed with her faith. Rulings like this clearly attack all women in America, which is over 50% of all Americans. They don't get to just ignore it. It was also realistically a planned ruling - from the GOP deliberating preventing the nomination of an SC under Obama (because it was a "lame duck" session, also "the replacement should also be conservative"), before placing their own appointment on the court, or when they then replaced RBG with a hyper conservative judge in a few weeks despite it being a lame duck session mere weeks prior to the election. The reality is one major american party has stated, very clearly, that its core principles are: removing women's bodily autonomy (check), removing LGBT rights (multiple states have even started passing legislation to explicitly allow bullying LGBT kids at school), suppressing votes of non-white americans (even republican judges, appointed by republican controlled state governments, in republican states have repeatedly declared numerous actions taken by the GOP to be unconstitutional). The fact that you're literally threatening to flag me, because you disagree with me politically, about a matter of whether all humans have rights no less, is quite revealing in of itself.
twoxproblematic 5y ago

by olliej 5y ago

ryan93 5y ago

Link to the section of the constitution that guarantees it?

runamok 5y ago
Here we go... Not a constitutional scholar but I could roughly extend the 13th and 19th amendment to cover this. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs. To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.
- s__s 5y ago
  The twin analogy is extremely weak. In this case the twin’s unfortunate circumstance is no fault of your own. You didn’t actively make any decision to put them in their situation of urgently needing you to survive. You need to alter your analogy such that you made some conscious decision that you knew could injure your twin brother, rendering him in need of one of your kidneys to live. At that point you have to show why it’s moral for you to withhold the organ donation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jimmygrapes 5y ago

> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....” - Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion This is gonna be fun.

olliej 5y ago
Yup, a rapist, and a “judge” who’s repeatedly stated the Bible takes precedence over the constitution. Pretty on brand for them to come in targeting specific legislation.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  I generally don't keep track of responses to my comments because it can end up with bickering, but I made an exception for now because of how proliferate and egregiously ridiculous your posts are. That said, I wish to let you know that you desperately need to disconnect from whatever bubbles you're in, take a breath, and get back to reality. I haven't flagged you yet because I prefer honest and informed dialog, but you don't seem to be interested in those topics so I may have to adjust my take. For now, I'll just say: this isn't reddit.
  - olliej 5y ago
    I also appreciate honest dialog, like the fact that every single survey has found that the majority of americans support women's rights. That a sitting member of the Supreme Court has a very plausible rape accusation that has been ignored, the another member of the Supreme Court has a track record of sexist treatment and harassment of court staff, and that one has written at length about how she would at best recuse herself if the law ever disagreed with her faith. Rulings like this clearly attack all women in America, which is over 50% of all Americans. They don't get to just ignore it. It was also realistically a planned ruling - from the GOP deliberating preventing the nomination of an SC under Obama (because it was a "lame duck" session, also "the replacement should also be conservative"), before placing their own appointment on the court, or when they then replaced RBG with a hyper conservative judge in a few weeks despite it being a lame duck session mere weeks prior to the election. The reality is one major american party has stated, very clearly, that its core principles are: removing women's bodily autonomy (check), removing LGBT rights (multiple states have even started passing legislation to explicitly allow bullying LGBT kids at school), suppressing votes of non-white americans (even republican judges, appointed by republican controlled state governments, in republican states have repeatedly declared numerous actions taken by the GOP to be unconstitutional). The fact that you're literally threatening to flag me, because you disagree with me politically, about a matter of whether all humans have rights no less, is quite revealing in of itself.

twoxproblematic 5y ago