17 ms·
The conflation of abortion nee pregnancy with the right to privacy was the fatal underpinning in Roe and wrongly construes the line of cases it descended from,
by jdkee 4y ago
The conflation of abortion nee pregnancy with the right to privacy was the fatal underpinning in Roe and wrongly construes the line of cases it descended from, starting with Griswold. Pregnancy as framed as the right of bodily autonomy in no way shape or form resembles the right to privacy. That is the bridge too far that leads to Roe's undoing. Alito correctly identifies this in his opinion, along with the fact that Casey is simply legislating from the bench, a no-no in the separation of powers, among other defects.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- guelo 4y agoIt's hard to care about legalistic arguments when what it boils down to is that we're losing some freedoms that we have enjoyed for the past 50 years.
- FeepingCreature 4y agoWell, don't build freedoms on bad legalistic theories if you don't want to lose them to legalistic arguments. "It's hard to care about foundation repair when you're lying in the rubble with broken bones." Well sure! You had decades to care!
- ReptileMan 4y agoWe have been constantly losing freedoms since 9/11, guantanamo and covid. 5-6 administrations have shown they care jack shit about right to privacy which underpins Roe. It's just the matter of course.
- blep_ 4y agoIt's also hard to watch people I agree with repeatedly make the same nonsensical arguments for a position I hold, and then repeatedly get surprised when they don't work out. This isn't a privacy issue any more than the legality of anything else is a privacy issue. Things don't become legal just because they're done in secret. It's not even a controlling-women issue. The abortion debate is, and has always been, a question of whether fetuses are alive enough for the term "murder" to apply to them. The longer we refuse to meet the opponent on those grounds, the longer every single thing we say will continue to sound like "it's okay to murder people because I'm doing so privately". This isn't to say the loss of those rights is okay. But our side did just get called out on some obvious bullshit, and if we want to get those rights back, we really need to do better than tenuous strawman arguments. Unless, of course, our goal isn't to win, but to just be eternally aggrieved. I am increasingly convinced that is the case.
- amethyst 4y ago> Unless, of course, our goal isn't to win, but to just be eternally aggrieved. I am increasingly convinced that is the case. It's worked pretty well for the conservatives the past couple decades.
- lliamander 4y agoSounds like I hold the opposite politics from you (I am a conservative who believes abortion is murder) but I too am continually frustrated when my own side makes obviously bad (or at least obviously unpersuasive) arguments. It's true that good argument's rarely change people's mind about the issue. But a good argument, one that shows you are capable of seeing things from the other side, can change another person's mind about you.
- isaacfrond 4y agoMaking obviously unpersuasive arguments is the <i>whole freaking point!</i> The whole abortion debate is a political tool to rally people behind. It is irrational precisely for this too work. Abortion proponents are not interested in debate and a reasonable outcome.
- blep_ 4y agoYep. This is not limited to any particular issue or ideology. It's not about accomplishing any of your policy goals anymore, it's about scoring grievance points. On the left, we accomplish this by tying everything into sexism and racism, even when other things would explain it better. Everyone knows sexism and racism are bad, so if we frame X as one of those, then X must be bad. It's intellectual laziness, even if you're right. The way I see internet debates is like this: am I going to change this person's mind? Probably not. But this is a public forum, and there are many other people watching. Some are young people poking their heads into politics for the first time. Those people are the ones dragging the Overton window around. I do not want their first impression of my side of an issue to be "wow, these people are just incoherently mad about everything, but the other side has a bunch of well-reasoned arguments". Regardless of my opinion on the premises of those arguments - and that's all this is, you're starting from different premises than me and you reached the only reasonable conclusion from there - that is going to affect their perceptions of my side and push them toward the people I disagree with.
- refurb 4y agoPretty much this. If our right to privacy hinged on Roe v. Wade, well, I hate to break it to you, but your right was cobbled together with string and chewing gum and would be open to attack for the foreseeable future. Far better to have Congress actually pass laws that clearly define privacy protections, that then make it easy for the courts to rule on.
- guelo 4y agoIt doesn't matter what Congress passes, this corrupt hyper-partisan court will do whatever the right wants.
- refurb 4y agoYou comment bears no resemblance to reality.
- guelo 4y agoThe supreme court gets to pick and choose their cases. They didn't have to take up Roe v Wade. Why did they?
- refurb 4y agoWas the court “hyper-partisan” when it ruled on Roe v Wade 50 years ago? Did it do the bidding of the “left”? Like I said, just because you don’t agree with their rulings doesn’t mean the court is “hyper-partisan” and does the “bidding of the right”.
- guelo 4y agoThe new conservative majority are aggressive culture warriors. They lose legitimacy with every decision. They will be around for decades, half the country will hate them more every decision until something in our democracy breaks. But that was probably the point when Republicans appointed 3 of the Bush v Gore lawyers, to poke and anger the other side.