2 ms·
> 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
by 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”.