4 ms·

> Well if we assume that some states are going to treat abortion as murder, one could argue encrypted communications about getting such an medical procedure are

> Well if we assume that some states are going to treat abortion as murder, one could argue encrypted communications about getting such an medical procedure are under higher pressure than when they are not. But that has nothing to do with outlawing encryption. There have already been cases where the government has been unable to access data related to murders. Classifying abortion as murder wouldn't change anything in that regard. >I wouldn't trust a system that is this unreasonable when it comes to bodily autonomy to suddenly have it's ducks in a row when it comes to privacy (or for that matter: any other freedom US citizens currently enjoy). Roe's problem is that it asserts a right that is never directly described in the amendment it's supposed to be based upon. This is unique to abortion as most fundamental rights are explicitly described in the constitution.

theossuary 4y ago
That's just a classic prolife talking point. The right to abortion is covered under the liberty clause of the 14th amendment, and overturning Planned Parenthood v Casey weakens that clause. This means the court is setting up to allow states much more freedom to restrict individual liberties. Why conservatives are okay with this I don't know, I guess authoritarians are okay with losing freedoms as long as they're in power.
- snickerbockers 4y ago
  >That's just a classic prolife talking point. well, it was an amendment introduced after the civil war to prohibit slavery on a constitutional level but then 100 years later some un-elected supreme court justices decided that it's also about making abortion a fundamental right. Maybe it's a classic because it's a good point? >This means the court is setting up to allow states much more freedom to restrict individual liberties The actual quote is "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;", i think it's a pretty big stretch to say that they meant that states can't make things illegal,especially since it follows up with "without due process of law". Plenty of other things have been outlawed both before and after this ruling. > This means the court is setting up to allow states much more freedom to restrict individual liberties. Why conservatives are okay with this I don't know, I guess authoritarians are okay with losing freedoms as long as they're in power. As I said above, 14A hasn't prevented people from losing liberties, except in this one narrow instance. The reason they're okay with losing this liberty is because they're concerned that unborn fetuses should be considered as human lives. Whether or not this is correct is debatable, but the point is that if they are considered as such then abortion could be outlawed for the same reason murder is outlawed.
atoav 4y ago
I am not from the US, where I am from one of the most crucial points in the constitution is human dignity: > Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) It is inhumane to force a woman to give birth to a child, if she does not want to do so, because doing so takes her human dignity away. The reasons she has behind her decision are none of anybody elses business — especially not a governments or a religions. Even if you don't have it directly written in the constitution, it is still the right thing to do. And I highly suspect there are a lot of hard rules that are not in the constitution (innocent until proven guilty for example). But even if you had it in the constitution I suspect there would be still an religious movement aginst it — which has more to do with the role they think women should be allowed have in society than with a real worry about unborn life (which is why they also try to ban things that prevent pregnancies in the first place). Even the whole discussion about late term abortion which we have in some catholic regions in Europe is ridiculous: I mean what do they think why those happen? Because the evil women decide it is fun to wait longer and have a far more traumatic, risky and costly medical procedure happening to them? The only reasoning where that starts to make sense is the prude religous angle, where women are only allowed to have (but not enjoy!) sex if it is meant to create a child. What happens with the child or the mother doesn't matter, as long sex stays the thing women are not allowed to have just like that. And while I feel that one is totally entitled to these opinions, and to ones own twisted suppressed sexuality, one is not allowed to take someone elses human dignity by forcing that opinion on them, because it is none of our business how prude or sexually open someone else leads their lives, as long as the fundamental rights of the people involved are protected equally. You cannot force someone to give away one of their organs to safe another person, even if they are the only person on the planet that could do so. And I don't want to live in a society where this is not the case.

theossuary 4y ago

That's just a classic prolife talking point. The right to abortion is covered under the liberty clause of the 14th amendment, and overturning Planned Parenthood v Casey weakens that clause. This means the court is setting up to allow states much more freedom to restrict individual liberties. Why conservatives are okay with this I don't know, I guess authoritarians are okay with losing freedoms as long as they're in power.

snickerbockers 4y ago
>That's just a classic prolife talking point. well, it was an amendment introduced after the civil war to prohibit slavery on a constitutional level but then 100 years later some un-elected supreme court justices decided that it's also about making abortion a fundamental right. Maybe it's a classic because it's a good point? >This means the court is setting up to allow states much more freedom to restrict individual liberties The actual quote is "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;", i think it's a pretty big stretch to say that they meant that states can't make things illegal,especially since it follows up with "without due process of law". Plenty of other things have been outlawed both before and after this ruling. > This means the court is setting up to allow states much more freedom to restrict individual liberties. Why conservatives are okay with this I don't know, I guess authoritarians are okay with losing freedoms as long as they're in power. As I said above, 14A hasn't prevented people from losing liberties, except in this one narrow instance. The reason they're okay with losing this liberty is because they're concerned that unborn fetuses should be considered as human lives. Whether or not this is correct is debatable, but the point is that if they are considered as such then abortion could be outlawed for the same reason murder is outlawed.

atoav 4y ago

I am not from the US, where I am from one of the most crucial points in the constitution is human dignity: > Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) It is inhumane to force a woman to give birth to a child, if she does not want to do so, because doing so takes her human dignity away. The reasons she has behind her decision are none of anybody elses business — especially not a governments or a religions. Even if you don't have it directly written in the constitution, it is still the right thing to do. And I highly suspect there are a lot of hard rules that are not in the constitution (innocent until proven guilty for example). But even if you had it in the constitution I suspect there would be still an religious movement aginst it — which has more to do with the role they think women should be allowed have in society than with a real worry about unborn life (which is why they also try to ban things that prevent pregnancies in the first place). Even the whole discussion about late term abortion which we have in some catholic regions in Europe is ridiculous: I mean what do they think why those happen? Because the evil women decide it is fun to wait longer and have a far more traumatic, risky and costly medical procedure happening to them? The only reasoning where that starts to make sense is the prude religous angle, where women are only allowed to have (but not enjoy!) sex if it is meant to create a child. What happens with the child or the mother doesn't matter, as long sex stays the thing women are not allowed to have just like that. And while I feel that one is totally entitled to these opinions, and to ones own twisted suppressed sexuality, one is not allowed to take someone elses human dignity by forcing that opinion on them, because it is none of our business how prude or sexually open someone else leads their lives, as long as the fundamental rights of the people involved are protected equally. You cannot force someone to give away one of their organs to safe another person, even if they are the only person on the planet that could do so. And I don't want to live in a society where this is not the case.