8 ms·

> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist Bodily autonomy is not a constitutional right, but self defense is? > Even Ruth Bad

> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist Bodily autonomy is not a constitutional right, but self defense is? > Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! A misrepresentation of what RBG was getting at. She was very much of the opinion that legislatively it should have been codified as a right. She's right, but it's pie in the sky, as much as her desire to be replaced by a woman President. > today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. Thomas specifically called out those decisions as being up for review. Alito mentioned it in his leaked opinion. (it may have been bargained out of the opinion, or maybe he chose not to be explicit as to not raise pressure in the political sphere, which seems likely given the nature of this court) Four of the justices who voted against Roe today within the past decade are on the record as saying that this was settled law. They are liars, and people are right to mistrust the court.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rat87 4y ago
  The constitution is quite explicit that the rights it protects are not limited to those explicitly listed I don't see what antivax has to do with anything
- 10x-dev 4y ago
  Your rights end where my rights begin. It's only a knot if your brain doesn't care for other people.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    This is such a nonsense talking point. No right that you have compels any other private citizen to do anything. You do, however, have plenty of rights that prevent people from doing things to you. And no, you don't get twist it around and say that people have to do something to prevent them from doing something to you. Sorry.
    - 10x-dev 4y ago
      Your choice of words tells me this will not be a productive conversation.
    - divided 4y ago
      Oh sorta like how people in restaurants don't have to wash their hands. Or doctors don't have to wash their hands. And others don't have to pass their drivers license test to drive on the roads. And public school students don't have to get vaccines. And people who serve in the military don't have to get their vaccines. And factories don't have to provide safe working conditions. And landlords don't have to inspect and maintain their properties. And drivers don't have to replace their tail lights when they're busted. And you don't need to clear your sidewalk after snowstorms. And McDonald's doesn't need to keep their coffee below a certain temperature and display hot warnings on their cups. If you'd consider for a second, you can come up with some of your own to debunk your own previous hypothesis. There are _countless_ examples where when you want to exist within society, you must act in order to prevent harms to others. I accept your apology, though.
- teg4n_ 4y ago
  Do tell me where the government was imprisoning people for not taking these experimental immunotherapies.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    So it's fine if they force your employer to fire you, just so long as they're not throwing you in prison.
    - selectodude 4y ago
      Uh, yeah. That's exactly right. A corporation is, believe it or not, not the government.
      - jaywalk 4y ago
        We are clearly talking about two very different things. I'm talking about the government forcing a corporation to fire certain employees, not a corporation making that decision on it's own.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Where did that happen? What rulings, what companies, what employees?
      - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
        The City of New York is not a corporation, and is one of many municipalities that has forced public employees to take the experimental immunotherapy or be fired. For the record, I have taken the experimental immunotherapy, but that has no bearing on the fact that the government should never be allowed to force people to undergo medical procedures, much less experimental ones.
        selectodude 4y ago
        To be pedantic, the City of New York is a municipal corporation. They are allowed to have conditions of continued employment. They cannot force vaccines upon anybody under the threat of jail time but they can certainly not continue to employ anybody they don't want to. NY is a right to work state.
- altcognito 4y ago
  So, the government never forced you to take a vaccine. You were only mandated to do so for employment purposes and public health. Persons are/were at risk of spreading disease to unwilling participants. Your freedom ends at my nose. Now, that being said, I agree, it was pretty heavy handed. Constitutionally breaking? Probably not. This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Your right to alcohol and other risky behaviors is also revoked as that is child endangerment. Now what about the child for the next 18 years? That is truly constitutionally problematic.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Those women can simply get their abortion done in another state, they're not "forced" to give birth to a child in much the same way a person threatened with losing their job wasn't "forced" to get a vaccine. Hey, you said it.
    - light_hue_1 4y ago
      You, with a straight face, are trying to say that a government restricting your rights is totally the same as the policy of an employer? And you're telling me that a vaccine which is obscenely safe, you are more likely to die from tripping down the stairs in your own home than you are to die from the vaccine, is totally the same as childbirth? Where nearly 1000 women die every year, many are left with serious conditions, where women are left in poverty where they can't care for those children. Come on. Your position is beyond absurd.
      - xienze 4y ago
        My position is that you cannot claim women are “forced” to give birth (they have options) if, like the parent, you claim that no one was “forced” to take a vaccine they didn’t want (they have the option of losing their job). It’s a matter of double standards here. People get all up in arms when you point out that you can still get an abortion if you just travel out of state. But if you point out that your only way to avoid taking a vaccine you don’t want is to lose your job, well no one is “forcing” you to take it! Likewise, I say it’s disingenuous to claim you’re forced to have an unwanted child. You just have to travel to another state. That’s a helluva lot easier to swallow than losing your job. Just drop the phrase “forced to” around abortion is all I’m saying.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > You can't have it both ways! You can when the two ways have different contexts. > force you to take injections of experimental immunotherapies Leaving aside the misleading "experimental" part, the bodily rights context here was "being part of a society" - this was a huge public health crisis - people not having the vaccine impacted on a greater part of society than just themselves. The bodily rights context for abortion is "a single person". Two clearly different situations, no?
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >Two clearly different situations, no? No. You either have bodily autonomy (My body, my choice!) or you don't. For the record I happen to support abortion (and in fact think society would be better off if many of the people in Washington DC had been aborted), but I oppose hypocrisy and logical fallacies.
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > You either have bodily autonomy (My body, my choice!) You don't think there's any situations where the state (in its role of protecting society) might be ok overriding someone's bodily autonomy? That would preclude any vaccinations, prisons, etc., no?
- alistairSH 4y ago
  You might want to read the document you're talking about. It's quite explicit that the rights it mentions are not are comprehensive list, but rather a floor. Penumbra and all that.
- divided 4y ago
  There is a lot of misinformation packed in two small paragraphs. Let’s try to unpack. First, are you aware that the right for individuals to bear arms was not considered a right by judicial opinion for most of US history until 2008? For instance, in US v Miller 1939 it was decided one didn’t have a right to own sawed off shotguns because it bore no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” You see, many read the amendment as the right for states to have a militia, not the right for individuals to bear arms for self defense. In fact, I believe most founding father documents support that interpretation. Interpretation matters as much as the document itself. Second, the US government hasn’t tried to force injections of experimental immunotherapies. It was no longer experimental after it achieved approval. No US government mandated the vaccine besides in situations where vaccines are already mandated. They strongly encouraged through rewards, but they always provided alternatives to requiring vaccination. For example, masking and testing have been at times adequate alternatives. The government has required vaccines for public school and the military for decades (centuries?), and it has been widely regarded as saving millions of lives, so it’s very weird that it’s an issue now. Oh right, culture war.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
musicale 4y ago
>> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! > She was very much of the opinion that legislatively it should have been codified as a right. These positions are not in conflict, and seem to be supported with quotes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader...
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Exactly correct, and today's ruling still doesn't prevent Congress from acting. They had 50 years to codify Roe into law, but they didn't. And now they'll come out and try to deflect the blame onto the Supreme Court, which is beyond absurd but will work to convince a whole lot of people. I have my own personal feelings on abortion, but as far as laws on it go I honestly don't care one way or another. So if all of these Congresspeople want to come out and say that the majority of the country wants abortion to be legal nationwide, then they need to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS and pass a law to make it so.
  - altcognito 4y ago
    A law isn't enough as it will be in conflict with the consitution. A constitutional amendment is required. To get enough Senate votes to pass a constitutional amendment, you're looking at 75% of the country voting for Democrats. Not going to happen. The Senate imbalance is ridiculous.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      The ruling said that the Constitution does not grant the right to abortion. It did not say that it denies the right to abortion.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      > you're looking at 75% of the country voting for Democrats A constitutional amendment ought to have support from more than one party, not just Democrats. You might be able to get that if you took a more oblique approach, for example with an amendment explicitly upholding the natural right to control over one's own body, as opposed to one narrowly focused on allowing abortion.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rat87 4y ago
The constitution is quite explicit that the rights it protects are not limited to those explicitly listed I don't see what antivax has to do with anything
10x-dev 4y ago
Your rights end where my rights begin. It's only a knot if your brain doesn't care for other people.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  This is such a nonsense talking point. No right that you have compels any other private citizen to do anything. You do, however, have plenty of rights that prevent people from doing things to you. And no, you don't get twist it around and say that people have to do something to prevent them from doing something to you. Sorry.
  - 10x-dev 4y ago
    Your choice of words tells me this will not be a productive conversation.
  - divided 4y ago
    Oh sorta like how people in restaurants don't have to wash their hands. Or doctors don't have to wash their hands. And others don't have to pass their drivers license test to drive on the roads. And public school students don't have to get vaccines. And people who serve in the military don't have to get their vaccines. And factories don't have to provide safe working conditions. And landlords don't have to inspect and maintain their properties. And drivers don't have to replace their tail lights when they're busted. And you don't need to clear your sidewalk after snowstorms. And McDonald's doesn't need to keep their coffee below a certain temperature and display hot warnings on their cups. If you'd consider for a second, you can come up with some of your own to debunk your own previous hypothesis. There are _countless_ examples where when you want to exist within society, you must act in order to prevent harms to others. I accept your apology, though.
teg4n_ 4y ago
Do tell me where the government was imprisoning people for not taking these experimental immunotherapies.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  So it's fine if they force your employer to fire you, just so long as they're not throwing you in prison.
  - selectodude 4y ago
    Uh, yeah. That's exactly right. A corporation is, believe it or not, not the government.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      We are clearly talking about two very different things. I'm talking about the government forcing a corporation to fire certain employees, not a corporation making that decision on it's own.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Where did that happen? What rulings, what companies, what employees?
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      The City of New York is not a corporation, and is one of many municipalities that has forced public employees to take the experimental immunotherapy or be fired. For the record, I have taken the experimental immunotherapy, but that has no bearing on the fact that the government should never be allowed to force people to undergo medical procedures, much less experimental ones.
      - selectodude 4y ago
        To be pedantic, the City of New York is a municipal corporation. They are allowed to have conditions of continued employment. They cannot force vaccines upon anybody under the threat of jail time but they can certainly not continue to employ anybody they don't want to. NY is a right to work state.
altcognito 4y ago
So, the government never forced you to take a vaccine. You were only mandated to do so for employment purposes and public health. Persons are/were at risk of spreading disease to unwilling participants. Your freedom ends at my nose. Now, that being said, I agree, it was pretty heavy handed. Constitutionally breaking? Probably not. This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Your right to alcohol and other risky behaviors is also revoked as that is child endangerment. Now what about the child for the next 18 years? That is truly constitutionally problematic.
- xienze 4y ago
  > This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Those women can simply get their abortion done in another state, they're not "forced" to give birth to a child in much the same way a person threatened with losing their job wasn't "forced" to get a vaccine. Hey, you said it.
  - light_hue_1 4y ago
    You, with a straight face, are trying to say that a government restricting your rights is totally the same as the policy of an employer? And you're telling me that a vaccine which is obscenely safe, you are more likely to die from tripping down the stairs in your own home than you are to die from the vaccine, is totally the same as childbirth? Where nearly 1000 women die every year, many are left with serious conditions, where women are left in poverty where they can't care for those children. Come on. Your position is beyond absurd.
    - xienze 4y ago
      My position is that you cannot claim women are “forced” to give birth (they have options) if, like the parent, you claim that no one was “forced” to take a vaccine they didn’t want (they have the option of losing their job). It’s a matter of double standards here. People get all up in arms when you point out that you can still get an abortion if you just travel out of state. But if you point out that your only way to avoid taking a vaccine you don’t want is to lose your job, well no one is “forcing” you to take it! Likewise, I say it’s disingenuous to claim you’re forced to have an unwanted child. You just have to travel to another state. That’s a helluva lot easier to swallow than losing your job. Just drop the phrase “forced to” around abortion is all I’m saying.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> You can't have it both ways! You can when the two ways have different contexts. > force you to take injections of experimental immunotherapies Leaving aside the misleading "experimental" part, the bodily rights context here was "being part of a society" - this was a huge public health crisis - people not having the vaccine impacted on a greater part of society than just themselves. The bodily rights context for abortion is "a single person". Two clearly different situations, no?
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >Two clearly different situations, no? No. You either have bodily autonomy (My body, my choice!) or you don't. For the record I happen to support abortion (and in fact think society would be better off if many of the people in Washington DC had been aborted), but I oppose hypocrisy and logical fallacies.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > You either have bodily autonomy (My body, my choice!) You don't think there's any situations where the state (in its role of protecting society) might be ok overriding someone's bodily autonomy? That would preclude any vaccinations, prisons, etc., no?
alistairSH 4y ago
You might want to read the document you're talking about. It's quite explicit that the rights it mentions are not are comprehensive list, but rather a floor. Penumbra and all that.
divided 4y ago
There is a lot of misinformation packed in two small paragraphs. Let’s try to unpack. First, are you aware that the right for individuals to bear arms was not considered a right by judicial opinion for most of US history until 2008? For instance, in US v Miller 1939 it was decided one didn’t have a right to own sawed off shotguns because it bore no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” You see, many read the amendment as the right for states to have a militia, not the right for individuals to bear arms for self defense. In fact, I believe most founding father documents support that interpretation. Interpretation matters as much as the document itself. Second, the US government hasn’t tried to force injections of experimental immunotherapies. It was no longer experimental after it achieved approval. No US government mandated the vaccine besides in situations where vaccines are already mandated. They strongly encouraged through rewards, but they always provided alternatives to requiring vaccination. For example, masking and testing have been at times adequate alternatives. The government has required vaccines for public school and the military for decades (centuries?), and it has been widely regarded as saving millions of lives, so it’s very weird that it’s an issue now. Oh right, culture war.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

musicale 4y ago

>> Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! > She was very much of the opinion that legislatively it should have been codified as a right. These positions are not in conflict, and seem to be supported with quotes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader...

jaywalk 4y ago
Exactly correct, and today's ruling still doesn't prevent Congress from acting. They had 50 years to codify Roe into law, but they didn't. And now they'll come out and try to deflect the blame onto the Supreme Court, which is beyond absurd but will work to convince a whole lot of people. I have my own personal feelings on abortion, but as far as laws on it go I honestly don't care one way or another. So if all of these Congresspeople want to come out and say that the majority of the country wants abortion to be legal nationwide, then they need to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS and pass a law to make it so.
- altcognito 4y ago
  A law isn't enough as it will be in conflict with the consitution. A constitutional amendment is required. To get enough Senate votes to pass a constitutional amendment, you're looking at 75% of the country voting for Democrats. Not going to happen. The Senate imbalance is ridiculous.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    The ruling said that the Constitution does not grant the right to abortion. It did not say that it denies the right to abortion.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    > you're looking at 75% of the country voting for Democrats A constitutional amendment ought to have support from more than one party, not just Democrats. You might be able to get that if you took a more oblique approach, for example with an amendment explicitly upholding the natural right to control over one's own body, as opposed to one narrowly focused on allowing abortion.