4 ms·

> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not.

by pdonis 5y ago

> that person is a hero. I don't think you have fully thought through your position. See below. > People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Yes, exactly. And many people's consciences in this country tell them that abortion is murder. Particularly abortion of a fetus after 15 weeks (which is when the Mississippi law under review here bans abortion), when the fetus, as the brief for petitioners in this case describes in some detail, already is recognizably human. You might not agree with those people's consciences, but they have them, and they're not going to go away. And on an issue like this, where different people's consciences are telling them very different things, the Federal Government--any branch of it, whether it's the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Executive--should not be dictating one policy. It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. Some states will be more liberal about abortion, some will be more conservative--because the consciences of their citizens tell them so. That's how the US system is supposed to work. > a massive regression for bodily autonomy and social rights. This is nonsense. You talk about right-wing propaganda about the sanctity of the Supreme Court; this claim is left-wing propaganda trying to push a concept of "autonomy" that completely denies personal responsibility, without which no republic like ours can endure. As noted above, the Mississippi law under review in this case only bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. 15 weeks is more than enough time for a woman to make a decision about her "bodily autonomy and social rights" if she has an unexpected pregnancy. "Bodily autonomy and social rights" does not mean the right to dawdle over an important, life-altering decision indefinitely. The deadline this Mississippi law sets is perfectly reasonable. So how is someone who leaked a draft Supreme Court decision that will undermine our trust in a valuable institution, in the name of a policy goal that doesn't even make sense, and which goes against the consciences of many Americans, a hero, again?

jmyeet 5y ago
> It should be left to the states Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. But that’s not what this draft looks like. You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. As an aside, even that view is a modern reinterpretation that has its roots in segregation. In the early 1970s, Baptists said the Bible was silent on the issue. Your religion is your business. I draw the line at you imposing it on others.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery States' rights is in the Constitution: the Tenth Amendment. And there is another amendment that abolished slavery, so we fixed the issue that you are talking about here. But that fix did not abolish states' rights. It still leaves things to the states that should be left to the states. > should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. I already explained why this is nonsense. > You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. Not everyone who believes abortion is murder believes that on religious grounds. There are valid non-religious grounds for considering a fetus, or at least a fetus after 15 weeks, which is the deadline in the law under review, to be a person, at least to a sufficient extent that aborting it would be murder. (The brief for petitioners in this case describes some of them.) You might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them "arbitrary".
- pdonis 5y ago
  > Your 15 weeks bit It's not mine, it's what the law under review says. > I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. Upholding the law under review would "look like that" no matter what. 15 weeks is what the law already says. The Court wouldn't have to rule that every state law has to use the 15 weeks deadline; indeed, I don't think it should. It would just have to rule that the 15 weeks deadline is within the power of the state's legislature to enact.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > It's not mine, it's what the law under review says. The opinion goes beyond just saying “this one law is fine”.
matsemann 5y ago
> It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it? > Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority. If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizing the minority" who want to commit murder. Or, to look at it the other way, if a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, but the majority in the state they live in think it isn't, and the laws of the state they live in, which are in accord with the wishes of the majority, permit abortions liberally, is that majority "tyrannizing" that person?
  - matsemann 5y ago
    Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of others, right?
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.
    - pdonis 5y ago

by pdonis 5y ago

jmyeet 5y ago

> It should be left to the states Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. But that’s not what this draft looks like. You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. As an aside, even that view is a modern reinterpretation that has its roots in segregation. In the early 1970s, Baptists said the Bible was silent on the issue. Your religion is your business. I draw the line at you imposing it on others.

pdonis 5y ago
> The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery States' rights is in the Constitution: the Tenth Amendment. And there is another amendment that abolished slavery, so we fixed the issue that you are talking about here. But that fix did not abolish states' rights. It still leaves things to the states that should be left to the states. > should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. I already explained why this is nonsense. > You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. Not everyone who believes abortion is murder believes that on religious grounds. There are valid non-religious grounds for considering a fetus, or at least a fetus after 15 weeks, which is the deadline in the law under review, to be a person, at least to a sufficient extent that aborting it would be murder. (The brief for petitioners in this case describes some of them.) You might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them "arbitrary".
pdonis 5y ago
> Your 15 weeks bit It's not mine, it's what the law under review says. > I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. Upholding the law under review would "look like that" no matter what. 15 weeks is what the law already says. The Court wouldn't have to rule that every state law has to use the 15 weeks deadline; indeed, I don't think it should. It would just have to rule that the 15 weeks deadline is within the power of the state's legislature to enact.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > It's not mine, it's what the law under review says. The opinion goes beyond just saying “this one law is fine”.

matsemann 5y ago

> It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

pdonis 5y ago
> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it? > Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority. If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizing the minority" who want to commit murder. Or, to look at it the other way, if a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, but the majority in the state they live in think it isn't, and the laws of the state they live in, which are in accord with the wishes of the majority, permit abortions liberally, is that majority "tyrannizing" that person?
- matsemann 5y ago
  Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of others, right?
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.
  - pdonis 5y ago