4 ms·

> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to you

> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Why did Roe v Wade rely on an unwritten right to privacy rather than the equal protection clause then?

lanstin 4y ago
I will defer to the explanation in chapter sixteen of https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-ebook/dp/B08TKKYP9L https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-eb... Something to do with some bad uses of substantive due process stuff in early 1900s.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  > Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Just one comment away from implying that this case is straightforward, and you're bringing up esoteric case law from 100 years ago. I don't point this out to denigrate you, but to highlight just how complicated law can be, particularly when it comes to landmark SCOTUS decisions. I thought I heard on the news that the majority opinion was 90 pages long, but I can't find a reference. However detailed it was, for the next month, literally millions of people will be on Twitter making 280-character-limited reductio ad absurdum comments about it.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    UPDATE: The decision is 231 pages. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade-pdf-00038117 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-...
kokanator 4y ago
The US government can compel a man to sacrifice their entire body ( and blood ) for the greater good of other citizens should they wish. [0] [0] https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  This is has been brought up a few times, but is largely a non-sequitur. First, if WWIII broke out, I doubt women would be exempt from a draft (e.g. see Israel where service is mandatory for women). Second, this is comparing exceptional circumstances where there is, presumably, an existential threat to the state vs. a situation that can reasonably be expected to occur in a person's lifetime (pregnancy). The draft is also a temporary measure. As with other wartime restrictions of civil liberties, like curfews or rationing, it would not be tolerated if continued outside the context of a war.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Why would you believe women wouldn’t be exempt from the draft? Do you have a historical example of that in the roughly 300 year history of the US? Do you anticipate on recent Supreme Court rulings that they will expand the idea of equality and not reinforce traditional Christian gender roles?

lanstin 4y ago

I will defer to the explanation in chapter sixteen of https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-ebook/dp/B08TKKYP9L https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-eb... Something to do with some bad uses of substantive due process stuff in early 1900s.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Just one comment away from implying that this case is straightforward, and you're bringing up esoteric case law from 100 years ago. I don't point this out to denigrate you, but to highlight just how complicated law can be, particularly when it comes to landmark SCOTUS decisions. I thought I heard on the news that the majority opinion was 90 pages long, but I can't find a reference. However detailed it was, for the next month, literally millions of people will be on Twitter making 280-character-limited reductio ad absurdum comments about it.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  UPDATE: The decision is 231 pages. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade-pdf-00038117 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/read-supreme-court-...

kokanator 4y ago

The US government can compel a man to sacrifice their entire body ( and blood ) for the greater good of other citizens should they wish. [0] [0] https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/

AlexandrB 4y ago
This is has been brought up a few times, but is largely a non-sequitur. First, if WWIII broke out, I doubt women would be exempt from a draft (e.g. see Israel where service is mandatory for women). Second, this is comparing exceptional circumstances where there is, presumably, an existential threat to the state vs. a situation that can reasonably be expected to occur in a person's lifetime (pregnancy). The draft is also a temporary measure. As with other wartime restrictions of civil liberties, like curfews or rationing, it would not be tolerated if continued outside the context of a war.
- lovich 4y ago
  Why would you believe women wouldn’t be exempt from the draft? Do you have a historical example of that in the roughly 300 year history of the US? Do you anticipate on recent Supreme Court rulings that they will expand the idea of equality and not reinforce traditional Christian gender roles?